What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
April 29, 2025 Recap
Donald Trump issued an Executive Order titled Addressing Certain Tariffs On Imported Articles, which purports to streamline the administration of tariffs by preventing the cumulative or "stacked" application of multiple duties on the same imported article. While framed as a corrective to overreach, the order instead reveals the incoherence and self-inflicted complexity of the administration’s trade policy. The order acknowledges that previous proclamations and executive actions have created overlapping tariffs under various authorities, including those aimed at protecting national security, combating drug trafficking at the borders, and supporting domestic industries like steel, aluminum, and automobiles. Rather than reevaluating these tariffs on their merits, the order merely introduces a set of procedural rules for determining which tariff should apply when more than one is implicated—effectively managing the consequences of a chaotic policy environment rather than addressing its root causes.
The justification presented in Section 1 relies heavily on national emergency powers under statutes like the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and the National Emergencies Act. This continued use of emergency declarations for structurally routine economic activity, such as regulating automobile imports or cross-border commerce, reflects an ongoing and troubling normalization of executive overreach. It underscores how the administration has expanded presidential power under the guise of “extraordinary threats” with minimal congressional consultation or public debate. In this case, the invocation of these authorities is not to respond to a crisis, but to moderate the effects of previous executive actions that were themselves arguably overreaching.
The core of the order lies in Section 3, which creates a hierarchy among tariffs: for example, auto-related tariffs are insulated from others, while steel and aluminum tariffs may still be stacked under certain conditions. These distinctions appear more political than economic, favoring industries with significant lobbying power or symbolic resonance in Trump’s messaging. The decision to allow steel and aluminum tariffs to stack while exempting automobile-related goods from additional duties reflects arbitrary sectoral favoritism rather than a coherent trade philosophy. Such inconsistent treatment invites questions about fairness, predictability, and the underlying rationale for trade enforcement. It also raises concerns that trade policy is being used not as a macroeconomic tool, but as a mechanism of patronage and punishment.
The legal and procedural framework of the order lacks clarity. While the order insists that all prior actions remain “independently valid and enforceable,” it offers no process for resolving conflicts when multiple tariff authorities could apply. It does not specify which agency or forum will adjudicate such disputes, nor does it define clear criteria for when non-stacking rules override otherwise applicable duties. Furthermore, its retroactive application to entries made since March 4, 2025—combined with a deadline of May 16 for updates to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule—creates significant administrative burdens for Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and importers. This retroactivity is likely to generate legal challenges and refund disputes, complicating enforcement and compliance.
The implementation section of the order delegates substantial discretionary authority to executive branch agencies, particularly DHS and CBP, without requiring public comment, transparency, or congressional review. This reinforces a broader pattern of Trump-era economic governance: the centralization of trade decisions within the White House and the marginalization of external oversight. By bypassing traditional regulatory safeguards like notice-and-comment rulemaking, the administration undermines the legitimacy and stability of tariff policy.
This executive order is not a structural reform of trade enforcement but a stopgap measure to mitigate the unintended consequences of disjointed and politically motivated tariffs. It does not rationalize the trade regime so much as it attempts to referee conflicts among the administration’s own contradictory actions. Far from streamlining economic governance, the order underscores the perils of governing by executive fiat, particularly in matters as globally consequential and legally intricate as trade policy.
Source: White House Briefing Room
Donald Trump issued a proclamation amending earlier tariff adjustments on imported automobiles and parts under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, continuing the administration’s aggressive use of national security as a justification for protectionist trade policy. The proclamation builds on previous executive actions, asserting that imported passenger vehicles and parts pose a threat to national security, despite offering no new compelling evidence to support this claim. The national security rationale, originally invoked in 2019, remains tenuous, as civilian automobiles and most of their components have little direct relevance to the defense industrial base. Rather than present new data, the proclamation reiterates past findings, relying on a broad interpretation of national security that has already drawn legal and economic scrutiny.
The new tariff offset system outlined in the proclamation effectively operates as a targeted subsidy for domestic vehicle manufacturers. By tying import duty relief to the domestic assembly of automobiles, the order rewards companies that concentrate production in the United States while penalizing those with global supply chains. This approach distorts market incentives and favors large, politically connected firms capable of navigating the complex compliance structure. The bureaucracy introduced by the proclamation is burdensome, requiring manufacturers to submit detailed production projections, tariff impact breakdowns, importer records, and certifications under penalty of perjury. Such administrative complexity will likely disadvantage smaller firms and strain government agencies like the Department of Commerce and Customs and Border Protection, which are tasked with implementation and enforcement.
Beyond domestic complications, the proclamation raises serious legal and trade policy concerns. The selective rebate structure could violate WTO rules by providing discriminatory financial benefits to certain manufacturers based on production location. It also risks exceeding the statutory bounds of Section 232, which authorizes import adjustments solely to counteract genuine threats to national security, not to implement industrial policy under another name. Despite lofty claims about job creation, expanded capacity, and increased R&D, the proclamation lacks economic modeling or evidence to support its projected benefits. Meanwhile, the potential downsides—higher consumer prices, strained supply chains, and retaliatory trade actions—are ignored entirely.
The proclamation appears driven as much by political considerations as by economic or security concerns. It aligns with President Trump’s broader strategy of asserting unilateral executive authority over trade policy while appealing to working-class voters in industrial states. However, its practical effects may be economically regressive, legally vulnerable, and diplomatically disruptive. While cloaked in procedural language and national security rhetoric, the proclamation represents a continuation of tariff populism through executive decree—one that substitutes policy complexity for strategic clarity and risks long-term damage to both U.S. trade credibility and the automotive industry’s competitiveness.
Source: White House Briefing Room
Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt’s second official “influencer” briefing at the White House exemplifies the Trump administration’s ongoing fusion of political spectacle and official communication. The briefing in the South Court Auditorium was less a forum for policy transparency than a tightly choreographed performance intended to glorify the president and energize digital loyalists. Leavitt adopted a promotional tone throughout, laced with superlatives like “historic,” “golden age,” and “incredible,” which replaced substantive explanation with applause-line rhetoric. She framed the administration’s agenda as a series of moral victories, positioning President Trump as a near-messianic figure single-handedly restoring prosperity and global respect while "saving" the American middle class.
Economic claims made during the briefing were both exaggerated and misleading. Job creation numbers lacked context and were cherry-picked to suggest a dramatic reversal of trends under Biden, despite broader post-pandemic recovery patterns. Leavitt's boasts about inflation, manufacturing gains, and “price relief” ignored macroeconomic complexities and existing data showing inflation had already been easing before Trump’s return to office. The $755 billion figure cited as savings from deregulation appears to be a projection rather than a realized fiscal outcome, with no explanation of methodology or third-party validation. Even mundane issues like egg prices were spun into ideological narratives, with Biden blamed for a "botched" bird flu response, while Trump was credited with lowering prices through sheer leadership.
Foreign policy remarks were even more troubling. Leavitt claimed that the war in Ukraine was solely a result of Biden’s “mental incompetence,” ignoring Russia’s longstanding geopolitical ambitions and the strategic failures of multiple administrations. Trump was cast as the only leader capable of negotiating peace, with vague references to meetings at the Vatican and unexplained "rare earth mineral deals" with Ukraine. These comments not only oversimplified a deadly and complex international conflict but suggested a disturbing transactional attitude toward diplomacy—framing aid and partnerships in terms of debt collection and mineral extraction. Her remarks about Greenland’s foreign minister, in which she mocked the idea of Greenland cooperating with China, descended into nationalist posturing that lacked diplomatic nuance and treated foreign allies as vassals.
The briefing also relied heavily on culture war tropes and populist antagonism. Federal workers were disparaged as lazy freeloaders, young college graduates were dismissed as debt-ridden victims of liberal indoctrination, and the Internal Revenue Service was targeted with fantasies of elimination. These themes reinforced a now-familiar narrative that frames bureaucrats, the educated class, and the legacy media as enemies of the “real” America. Leavitt's repeated references to Trump's “leverage” and relentless work ethic elevated the president into an almost mythological figure, further blurring the lines between governance and personality cult.
Perhaps most concerning was the event’s structure and intent. By labeling it an “influencer” briefing, the administration bypassed traditional journalistic scrutiny in favor of curated, sympathetic content creators. Exchanges like the “Trump trolling or Trump truthing” segment trivialized the seriousness of governance and normalized meme-driven partisanship as official communication. Even personal anecdotes—such as those praising the number of babies in the West Wing—were used to frame the administration as nurturing and youthful, while sidestepping policy detail or measurable outcomes.
The briefing was a carefully designed propaganda event that substituted emotional appeals, buzzwords, and digital optics for policy substance. It reflected an administration more focused on controlling the narrative through loyalty, amplification, and spectacle than on delivering verifiable, actionable updates to the American public. As political theater, it was effective. As a model for democratic transparency and executive accountability, it failed.
President Trump’s remarks at Selfridge Air National Guard Base in Michigan were characteristic of his campaign-style approach to public speaking—rambling, improvisational, and heavily steeped in personal anecdotes and self-congratulation. Though the appearance was ostensibly focused on announcing the replacement of retiring A-10 Warthogs with 21 new F-15EX Eagle II fighter jets and reaffirming the base’s strategic relevance, the speech quickly veered into an unfocused mixture of partisan praise, military flattery, and rhetorical detours. Trump repeatedly lost narrative cohesion, wandering from military readiness into unrelated asides about tax legislation, recruitment statistics, submarines, past election wins, and missile defense systems. Rather than offering a structured policy address, he indulged in casual banter—asking audience members if the chairs were real, joking about whether to call the new missile shield “Golden Dome” or “Iron Dome,” and making offhand references to audience members like “Where the hell are you, David?” These moments eroded the seriousness of a national defense message.
The tone was uneven, shifting from solemn military commendations to campaign-style grievances and boasts. While Trump uncharacteristically praised Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer for her role in advocating for Selfridge’s preservation, he framed it in a way that reinforced partisan division, claiming he was told not to invite her and then congratulating himself for doing so anyway. This undercut any genuine sense of bipartisan cooperation. His announcement of a $1 trillion defense budget and claims of record recruitment numbers since “November 5th” were presented with no supporting data. Sweeping generalizations and unverifiable superlatives (“we have a monopoly on submarines,” “most powerful machine ever built,” “best fighter jets in the world”) littered the speech, diminishing the credibility of otherwise meaningful updates on national defense investments.
More troubling was the politicized framing of the military’s loyalty. Trump implied that recruitment had surged because Americans once again had a commander-in-chief “who has their back,” insinuating that the prior administration had not. Military officials and local leaders who followed echoed this sentiment in what felt like orchestrated endorsements of Trump’s leadership, further blurring the lines between national defense and partisan politics. Statements like “No one else could save Selfridge” and “We are winning because of you” reinforced a narrative that military support is uniquely contingent on Trump’s presidency—a dangerous precedent in a democratic republic that depends on civilian control of a nonpartisan military.
What should have been a presidential address affirming the future of a strategically important base turned into a self-promotional rally heavy on flattery and light on policy substance. The speech's tone, structure, and content all pointed to a priority on political theatrics over institutional leadership. While the announced upgrades to Selfridge are meaningful, the delivery of that message was muddied by exaggeration, partisan jabs, and performative detours that diminished the dignity of the occasion.
Donald Trump's speech in Warren, Michigan, marking the 100th day of his second term, was an expansive, improvisational performance that resembled a campaign rally more than a presidential address. Spanning nearly two hours, the speech was rife with digressions, repetitive slogans, personal anecdotes, and red-meat rhetoric aimed at energizing his base. Trump claimed sweeping successes—such as historic drops in inflation, egg prices, and prescription drug costs—without providing credible data, often citing implausible or fabricated figures (e.g., “eggs down 87%,” “99.999% decrease in illegal immigration,” and “350,000 jobs created in three months”). His policy claims, including the dismantling of the Department of Education, eliminating USAID, terminating diversity and inclusion programs, and banning transgender athletes and gender-affirming care for minors, were delivered in language that was often aggressive and exclusionary, reflecting a hardline culture-war agenda rather than inclusive governance.
Throughout the speech, Trump repeatedly returned to themes of victimhood and revenge, portraying himself as both triumphant and persecuted. He revived debunked claims about winning the 2020 election, called for the deportation of undocumented immigrants using hyperbolic language, and characterized political opponents as criminals, lunatics, or traitors. His tone oscillated between self-congratulatory and conspiratorial, interspersed with personal attacks on Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, the media, and federal judges. Shout-outs to loyalists like Elon Musk, Stephen Miller, and Mike Lindell added to the rally-style theatrics, while crude humor and unfiltered commentary—mocking Biden’s physical fitness, misgendering a protester, and insulting cable news anchors—reinforced Trump’s disdain for political norms.
Factually, the speech was riddled with falsehoods and exaggerations. Claims of achieving the most secure border in U.S. history, restoring the economy in record time, ending inflation, and signing off on more executive actions than any prior president lacked supporting evidence. The invocation of tariffs as a magic bullet for domestic industry ignored the broader economic costs, and the casual threats to foreign trade partners reflected a transactional view of international relations rooted more in bravado than diplomacy.
The speech served as a declaration of ideological entrenchment, a rejection of technocratic governance, and a reaffirmation of Trump’s populist identity. It was a demonstration of personality-driven politics where spectacle substitutes for substance, and grievances are weaponized to justify sweeping cultural, economic, and institutional transformations. While the crowd cheered, the performance raised profound questions about governance, accountability, and the boundaries of presidential power.
Source: Fox 4 Dallas-Ft. Worth
The Trump administration has dismissed nearly 400 scientists contributing to the congressionally mandated Sixth National Climate Assessment, a major federal report on climate change due in 2027. The scientists, many of them volunteers and non-federal experts, were informed via email that their services were no longer needed as the scope of the report is being “reevaluated.” This move follows prior firings within the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) and cancellation of related contracts.
Critics, including scientists and environmental advocates, say this decision undermines the report’s credibility and scientific rigor. They fear the administration may rewrite the assessment to align with ideological goals outlined in Project 2025, a Heritage Foundation roadmap for Republican governance, which advocates limiting bureaucratic influence and incorporating “diverse viewpoints” on climate.
Experts like Dr. Robert Kopp and Dr. Mijin Cha warn that without expert input, any forthcoming report risks lacking scientific integrity and may spread misinformation. While the administration is legally required to publish the report under the Global Change Research Act of 1990, it's unclear how the scientific community will respond—some suggest an independent, externally funded effort may be necessary to maintain credibility.
Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta announced that California, joined by a multistate coalition, is suing the Trump administration and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) for dismantling AmeriCorps. The lawsuit claims that by canceling grants and slashing staff, the administration is effectively shutting down the federal volunteer agency and undermining vital community services across the nation.
In response, California is expanding its own California Service Corps — now the largest in the country — which includes College Corps, Climate Action Corps, Youth Service Corps, and AmeriCorps California. Officials emphasized that service work is critical to the state’s recovery from wildfires, academic setbacks, and economic challenges.
In 2024 alone, over 6,000 AmeriCorps members in California served in schools, food banks, shelters, clinics, and disaster zones, providing millions of service hours and helping tens of thousands of residents. State leaders condemned the cuts as illegal and vowed to protect and strengthen service infrastructure through legal action and expanded state programs.
Source: Governor of California
In response to mounting pressure from the Trump administration and a $2.2 billion federal funding freeze, Harvard University has renamed its Office for Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging to “Community and Campus Life.” This change, announced by DEI head Sherri Ann Charleston, is seen as a symbolic concession to President Trump’s broader campaign against DEI initiatives, which his administration has labeled discriminatory. Additionally, Harvard will no longer sponsor affinity-based graduation ceremonies, reportedly under threat from the Department of Education over funding cuts.
On the same day, the Trump administration launched a civil rights investigation into the Harvard Law Review, alleging racial favoritism in article selection. This escalates Harvard’s ongoing legal battle with the federal government over academic freedom and political influence in higher education. While Harvard maintains it will not yield to sweeping policy demands—including those affecting protest policies, admissions, and faculty hiring—its funding remains frozen pending a court decision expected after oral arguments on July 21. The administration has also threatened to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status and ability to host foreign students.
I have been thinking that everyone seems to be covering Trump. There are a lot of interesting folks out there countering him, many of whom most people never heard of. That might be more interesting and less depressing to write about.