What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
March 14, 2025 Recap
President Trump's remarks at the Department of Justice offered more political rallying and self-vindication than clear policy solutions or constructive institutional guidance. The speech consistently shifted from the stated purpose—addressing law enforcement and combating fentanyl and violent crime—into personal grievances and political recriminations. Trump dedicated substantial time to accusing his perceived enemies within the government, judiciary, and media, which weakened the speech’s purported intention to outline clear and credible strategies for improving justice and security in America.
The address, characterized by its combative tone, often strayed into divisive language, labeling opponents as "scum," "thugs," and "communists." Such inflammatory rhetoric undermined the impartiality typically expected at the Department of Justice, an institution traditionally valued for neutrality and fairness rather than overt partisanship. Trump’s repeated personal references—particularly to his own legal troubles, election grievances, and ongoing conflicts with prosecutors—undermined the legitimacy and impartiality of the department itself, potentially eroding public trust rather than restoring it.
Furthermore, Trump's reliance on anecdotal emotional appeals, such as stories from Angel families affected by fentanyl and illegal immigration, though powerful, came at the expense of nuanced policy detail. His proposals—such as mass deportations, reinstatement of the death penalty, and aggressive anti-drug measures—were presented in a simplistic manner without substantial acknowledgment of constitutional limits, civil rights implications, or practical hurdles in execution. The call for extreme measures, including hints at imposing severe penalties without careful consideration of judicial oversight, suggests a disregard for essential checks and balances fundamental to a fair justice system.
Trump also conflated judicial independence with partisan loyalty, praising judges he viewed as allies while harshly criticizing those he considered adversaries. This framing suggests a troubling expectation that the judiciary and law enforcement agencies serve the political aims of the administration rather than remaining independent arbiters. His personal grievances against individual judges, prosecutors, and the media were disproportionately emphasized, detracting significantly from the Department of Justice's professional mission.
Lastly, the speech largely avoided acknowledging the complexities involved in the global geopolitical situations he referenced, such as Ukraine, Russia, Afghanistan, and Middle Eastern affairs. Instead, Trump offered simplistic assertions that international crises would not have occurred under his watch without meaningful evidence or a detailed strategy to substantiate those claims.
The speech fell short of a presidential address that would unify the public or clarify how substantive reforms could be responsibly achieved. The remarks risk deepening polarization, overshadowing genuine public safety and justice reform issues with political resentment and grievance rather than proposing clear, achievable paths forward.
President Trump’s executive order, Additional Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions, represents a sweeping ideological rollback of key Biden-era initiatives across public health, labor rights, climate policy, and human rights. Framed around vague goals like “restoring common sense” and “unleashing the potential of American citizens,” the order lists nearly twenty executive actions for rescission without offering any substantive justification for why they are considered harmful. This lack of transparency and absence of data-driven reasoning suggests that the motivation is largely political, aimed at dismantling the legacy of the prior administration rather than improving governance outcomes.
Among the most troubling aspects of this action is the revocation of Executive Order 13994, which called for a data-driven response to COVID-19 and future public health threats. Rolling back such infrastructure weakens national readiness and disregards hard-earned lessons from the pandemic. Similarly, the rescission of multiple determinations under the Defense Production Act—which supported clean energy technologies like solar modules, electric heat pumps, and hydrogen fuel components—signals a deliberate retreat from climate-forward industrial policy. These reversals, coupled with the cancellation of orders advancing biotechnology, apprenticeship programs, and tribal sovereignty, paint a picture of an administration more interested in ideological retribution than in fostering innovation, inclusion, or resilience.
Equally concerning is the rollback of labor protections, including the minimum wage increase for federal contractors and efforts to expand apprenticeships. These measures were designed to strengthen the workforce and promote equitable economic mobility; their removal reflects a diminishing regard for American workers despite rhetorical claims to support them. On the international stage, revoking memoranda that supported LGBTQ+ rights and modernized arms transfer policy suggests a retreat from U.S. moral leadership and a weakening of human rights advocacy in foreign policy.
The order comes across as a broad and symbolic rejection of the previous administration’s values rather than a carefully considered effort to refine or replace flawed policies. Without a detailed analysis or alternatives, this directive risks stalling progress on multiple fronts—from health and climate to labor and diplomacy—while reinforcing a pattern of governing through negation rather than by advancing clear, constructive goals.
President Trump issued an executive order titled "Addressing Risks from Paul Weiss," which presents itself as a national security measure aimed at curbing alleged misconduct and discrimination by a prominent law firm. However, a closer examination reveals it to be a politically charged directive that prioritizes personal retribution over objective governance. The order singles out Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP for its past involvement in legal matters connected to the former president—specifically, a pro bono lawsuit related to the January 6 Capitol attack and the hiring of Mark Pomerantz, a former prosecutor associated with investigations into Trump. These references frame the firm’s legal activities as threats to national interests, but in reality, they appear more as justifications for retaliating against perceived political adversaries.
The order’s portrayal of pro bono legal work as harmful to access to justice is both misleading and disingenuous. By suggesting that representation of progressive or anti-Trump causes deprives others of legal resources, it fundamentally mischaracterizes the purpose and benefit of pro bono service, which is to expand access—not restrict it. Moreover, the sweeping invocation of “national security” to justify measures like suspending security clearances, terminating contracts, and banning firm employees from federal buildings lacks an evidentiary basis. No documentation of wrongdoing or formal misconduct was provided. Instead, the order leans on vague assertions to justify actions that could severely undermine legal independence and due process.
Perhaps most troubling is the executive order’s attack on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. It labels Paul Weiss’s internal policies as unlawful discrimination and casts suspicion on virtually all “large, influential, or industry-leading” law firms for pursuing DEI goals. This ideological targeting is not grounded in legal findings but reflects a broader campaign to dismantle DEI frameworks across institutions. In doing so, the order positions the federal government as an enforcer of a narrow cultural agenda, punishing entities that fail to align with the administration’s views on race, hiring, and equity.
Ultimately, this executive order constitutes a dangerous overreach of presidential power. It sends a chilling message to law firms, legal professionals, and government contractors: political alignment with the administration is now a condition for participation in public life. By attempting to blacklist a private firm based on its involvement in disfavored legal actions and internal workplace policies, the order undercuts foundational principles such as the independence of the bar, equal access to justice, and protection from government retaliation. Framed as a national security measure, it reveals the administration’s willingness to exploit executive authority to pursue personal grievances and ideological aims—at the expense of democratic norms.
President Trump’s executive order, "Continuing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy," represents an aggressive continuation of his long-standing effort to shrink the federal government. While the order is framed around eliminating “unnecessary” bureaucracy, its substance reflects a sweeping ideological move rather than a measured or data-driven policy reform. The directive targets several agencies—such as the Institute of Museum and Library Services, the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness, and the Minority Business Development Agency—many of which serve vulnerable communities, support educational and cultural initiatives, or promote economic opportunity among historically marginalized groups. Notably, the order offers no performance-based justification for these cuts nor acknowledges the services these agencies provide. Instead, it broadly labels their functions as non-statutory and expendable, reducing complex public services to budget line items subject to executive discretion.
The order’s requirement that agency heads submit compliance reports within seven days to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is a clear move to centralize power within the executive branch. Directing OMB to reject funding requests that do not align with the order’s goals effectively strips Congress of its traditional role in appropriations and oversight, replacing legislative checks with a top-down directive. While the order includes standard legal disclaimers to ensure it complies with existing law, these provisions do little to offset the potential disruption to public services or the chilling effect it may have on agencies and personnel now operating under threat of dissolution.
Beyond its legal and bureaucratic implications, the order’s broader social consequences are deeply troubling. For example, eliminating the Interagency Council on Homelessness during a time of rising housing insecurity undermines the nation’s ability to coordinate effective responses to homelessness. Similarly, defunding the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service weakens the infrastructure for resolving labor disputes, potentially fueling greater workplace instability. Eliminating agencies like the Minority Business Development Agency further signals a deprioritization of equity initiatives in federal economic policy. Taken as a whole, this executive order does not reflect an effort to modernize or streamline government but rather a politically driven attempt to dismantle programs that conflict with the administration’s ideological aims. It sacrifices the practical functions of governance in favor of a symbolic campaign against “big government,” with little regard for the public good these agencies are meant to serve.
A U.S. appeals court has temporarily allowed the Trump administration to enforce a ban on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs within federal agencies and among businesses with government contracts, reversing an earlier nationwide block by a federal judge. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Richmond, Virginia, ruled that President Trump’s directives—including a call for the Department of Justice to investigate companies with DEI policies—were likely constitutional, disagreeing with a February decision by a federal judge in Maryland. Despite the panel’s ruling, two of the three judges expressed concern about the broader implications of the orders. Circuit Judge Albert Diaz emphasized that those working to promote diversity deserve praise, not condemnation, while Judge Allison Rushing, a Trump appointee, countered that personal opinions about DEI have no bearing on the legal merits of the case.
The case was brought by the city of Baltimore and three advocacy groups, who argued that Trump overstepped his authority and violated free speech protections by issuing orders that targeted constitutionally protected expression. The Trump administration has maintained that the directives do not suppress speech but are aimed at curbing unlawful discrimination. Trump's orders directed federal agencies to eliminate DEI programs and barred federal contractors—including many major U.S. companies—from implementing such initiatives. They further instructed federal agencies to identify schools, businesses, and nonprofits potentially engaging in unlawful discrimination under the guise of DEI.
While the appeals court decision permits the administration to continue enforcing the ban during the appeals process, which could take months, controversy remains. The plaintiffs have accused the administration of defying the lower court’s original injunction by continuing to condition some federal contracts on anti-DEI compliance. U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson, who had issued the initial block, held a hearing on these concerns but has yet to issue a new ruling. The White House and Justice Department have not commented, and the plaintiffs' legal team is reviewing the appeals court’s decision.
The Trump administration has decided to end translation services for callers to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), specifically U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), who inquire about employment verification or immigration benefits. This move involves terminating a contract with Legal Interpreting Services, Inc., which previously enabled non-English speakers to get assistance via interpreters.
USCIS employees are now instructed to end calls if they do not speak the caller’s language, with no option to bring in interpreters or transfer the call to a multilingual colleague. This policy change is expected to disproportionately affect individuals and organizations using programs like E-Verify and SAVE—tools used to verify work authorization and immigration status. Without translation support, errors in these databases may go uncorrected, potentially leading to wrongful denial of public benefits or job loss for non-English-speaking individuals.
Advocates, such as the American Immigration Council, warn that this rollback could seriously hinder access to critical government services for limited-English-proficient communities. The affected translation contract was part of a $13.5 million DHS-wide agreement supporting translation for FEMA and asylum-related services. The status of those other components remains uncertain.
The Trump administration has taken an unprecedented step by ordering Columbia University to place its Department of Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies under academic receivership for at least five years. This move, tied to the university’s receipt of federal funding, is widely regarded as a direct attack on academic freedom and institutional autonomy. The administration has already pulled $400 million in contracts from Columbia over allegations of antisemitism and has threatened to withhold additional funding unless the university complies with a series of sweeping demands. These include banning masks on campus, adopting a new definition of antisemitism, overhauling student disciplinary procedures, and reforming admissions practices. Legal scholars and academic leaders across the country have condemned the action as unconstitutional and chilling, with comparisons made to the McCarthy era—though many note that even during that time, such direct federal control of academic departments did not occur.
The administration's focus on Columbia stems partly from the university's role as a flashpoint in nationwide pro-Palestinian protests. Federal officials have accused protestors of supporting Hamas, and they are now investigating whether Columbia shielded students allegedly involved in those demonstrations. Critics argue that the targeted receivership is a veiled attempt to punish departments perceived as critical of Israel. The tactic of academic receivership is rarely used and typically reserved for internal institutional crises—not imposed by the federal government as a political tool. Columbia is reviewing the demands, but higher education leaders across the country have expressed deep concern, warning that this represents a dangerous collapse of the line between federal authority and academic governance.
Many fear this is a preview of Trump's broader efforts to reshape higher education institutions along ideological lines, particularly as his administration ramps up investigations into other universities. Legal experts maintain that the federal government lacks the authority to restructure academic departments or dictate campus policy in this manner. Faculty and civil liberties groups have decried the demands as both overreaching and unconstitutional, calling them a blueprint for censorship. As universities grapple with balancing free expression and campus safety, this latest development sends a chilling message: dissent or perceived political opposition could invite direct federal intervention and punishment.
Despite two federal court rulings ordering the reinstatement of thousands of fired federal workers, the Trump administration is pressing ahead with sweeping government downsizing plans. Under the leadership of Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), agencies have been instructed to submit reorganization plans aiming to cut over 100,000 federal jobs, cancel programs, and reduce foreign aid.
Vice President JD Vance acknowledged that mistakes were made during the rapid downsizing, including firing critical employees like nuclear security officials and bird flu scientists. However, he defended most federal employees and emphasized swiftly correcting errors.
The IRS plans to cut up to 25% of its workforce by mid-May, adding to broader reductions across agencies like the Department of Veterans Affairs, which aims to cut over 80,000 jobs. Legal challenges are mounting, with recent rulings in California and Maryland deeming the mass firings of probationary employees at 18 agencies unlawful.
Despite these setbacks, the White House is appealing the rulings and condemning the judges as partisan, insisting the president’s executive authority should not be restrained by federal courts.
The Trump administration has moved to dismiss lawsuits originally filed by the Biden administration against Iowa and Oklahoma over their state-level immigration laws. These laws make it a crime for undocumented immigrants to be present in the state, similar to a law previously passed in Texas.
The Biden DOJ had sued the three states, arguing that such laws infringe on federal authority over immigration enforcement. While a federal appeals court quickly paused Texas’ law, the Iowa and Oklahoma laws have also been blocked pending court review.
Oklahoma and Iowa officials praised the Trump DOJ’s move as a victory, blaming the Biden administration’s border policies for forcing states to act. Meanwhile, immigrant rights groups—such as the Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice—continue their legal battles to block the Iowa law despite the DOJ’s withdrawal. A recent appellate court ruling complicated the group’s case, suggesting the federal lawsuit rendered theirs moot.
The ACLU of Iowa says it remains committed to preventing the enforcement of the Iowa law, and legal efforts continue at the appellate level.