What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
February 22, 2025 Recap
President Trump delivered a lengthy, bombastic, rambling performance at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, D.C. His speech focused less on genuine policy discussion and more on self-aggrandizement and simplistic demagoguery. It was a relentless stream of hyperbolic claims and unsourced statistics as he boasted about record-breaking poll numbers and historic electoral victories without providing verifiable evidence. Instead of engaging in substantive debate, he reduced complex issues like immigration, economic policy, and international relations to simplistic, binary battles of “us versus them,” which only served to polarize the political climate further.
Throughout the address, Trump’s language was overtly incendiary. He frequently resorted to derisive nicknames like “crooked Joe” and “Sleepy Joe,” and his dismissive references to “fraudsters,” “globalist enemies,” and “radical left Marxists” undermined any opportunity for constructive dialogue. This aggressive, partisan rhetoric was designed solely to rally his base rather than to address or solve the underlying challenges faced by the country. By engaging in personal attacks and overt mockery, he deepened divisions and trivialized serious issues that required nuanced discussion.
Moreover, the speech was notably thin on detailed policy proposals. Trump repeatedly claimed successes—such as dramatic reductions in illegal border crossings and massive deportation operations—yet he provided little in the way of concrete evidence, lacking a coherent strategy. This lack of substantive detail exposed the speech as a populist performance rather than a thoughtful governance strategy, effectively providing little issues that demand careful and informed policymaking.
Ultimately, Trump’s address was a case study of the dangers of political spectacle. His reliance on hyperbole, divisive rhetoric, and empty promises contributed to an atmosphere where sound policy was sacrificed for political theater.
President Trump’s directive to cut tens of thousands of federal workers has led to significant layoffs at the NIH’s Center for Alzheimer's and Related Dementias (CARD). Approximately 10% of CARD's nearly 100 employees were terminated, including lead researcher Kendall Van Keuren-Jensen—who was set to become the acting director and was expected to drive key advancements in dementia research. CARD employees express concern that even small cuts could disrupt the center's collaborative efforts and jeopardize progress in understanding and treating dementia.
The Office of Community Planning and Development at HUD, which disburses over $3.6 billion for housing and support services, faces an 84% staff cut. This drastic reduction is expected to delay funding and disrupt critical services for homeless people across the country, worsening an already severe crisis. The cuts are part of a broader Trump-era initiative (via the Department of Government Efficiency overseen by Elon Musk) to halve HUD’s overall staff. At the same time, debates rage over the current "Housing First" approach—with some Republicans advocating for changes that would shift control to states—raising fears that these policy shifts, combined with staffing cuts, will further exacerbate homelessness.
The Supreme Court has temporarily halted President Trump's move to fire Hampton Dellinger, the head of the Office of Special Counsel. Instead of outright granting the administration's emergency request, the justices left the matter pending further lower court proceedings, with a hearing set for February 26. The order reflects a split among the justices—while two liberal members would have denied the request, two conservatives supported it. This case is part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to overhaul federal agencies, including plans to install Doug Collins as the acting head of the Office, despite longstanding legal protections that allow a federal watchdog to be removed only for specific misconduct. Lower courts had already blocked Trump's attempt, and this dispute now awaits further judicial review.
Elon Musk’s private security team has recently been granted deputized status by the U.S. Marshals Service, giving them certain rights and protections similar to those of federal law enforcement agents. This decision was made amid growing concerns for Musk's safety, which have been heightened by several reported death threats in recent weeks. At a conservative political gathering near Washington, D.C., Musk recounted an unusual conversation with El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele, who expressed worry about his security. This comment underscored the real dangers Musk faces. Musk’s reaction was a mix of disbelief and recognition of the situation, noting that his current security detail might be too small given the heightened threat level.
The deputization process, while typical for regular police forces—as demonstrated during President Trump’s inauguration when thousands of officers from various agencies were sworn in to secure the nation’s capital—is quite unusual for a private security team. Although the exact scope of the powers granted to Musk’s team remains unclear, such status generally allows the carrying of weapons on federal property and the authority to make arrests under certain circumstances. However, granting law enforcement-like powers to a non-traditional, private team seems to blur the lines that usually separate official law enforcement agencies from private security. Such a precedent could undermine established protocols, paving the way for security measures not subject to the same oversight or accountability as those provided by agencies like the Secret Service.
Adding further complexity to the matter is Musk’s role as head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a position he assumed after being tapped by President Trump. His appointment has been controversial, partly due to the department’s actions, which include significant federal workforce cuts and attempts to access sensitive government data. The political undertones of the situation cannot be ignored. Musk’s involvement with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), established under President Trump’s influence, suggests that his security arrangements might be more intertwined with political agendas than objective security assessments.
Federal employees received an email on Saturday asking them to list five bullet points about their previous week’s accomplishments. The submission deadline is Monday at 11:59 p.m. ET.
The email instructs them to reply with roughly five bullet points summarizing their accomplishments and to copy in their manager. It also cautions against including any classified information, links, or attachments. CNN has obtained copies of these emails sent to multiple federal workers.
Elon Musk, spearheading a government efficiency initiative at President Trump's direction, tweeted that this move is “consistent with President @realDonaldTrump’s instructions” and warned on X that “failure to respond will be taken as a resignation.” However, the actual email only states that the submission deadline is Monday at 11:59 p.m. ET; it does not include any language about resignation for non-response.
Shortly after Musk’s post, President Trump praised him as a “patriot” and said he was “doing a great job” during the Conservative Political Action Conference remarks. Musk has not provided further details about the process, including exactly which employees will receive these emails or additional deadlines, and questions remain about the legality of this directive.
