What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
Weekend Recap: May 10 & 11, 2025
Donald Trump’s Truth Social post urging Ukraine to accept a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Turkey is impulsive, historically distorted, and diplomatically naïve. His demand that Ukraine agree to this “IMMEDIATELY” oversimplifies the geopolitical realities of a war in which Ukraine is the victim of an unprovoked invasion. By treating the aggressor and the defender as moral equals, Trump fails to consider the risks Ukraine faces in legitimizing Russian territorial gains through premature negotiations. Moreover, the assumption that a single meeting could clarify the entire diplomatic landscape is both unrealistic and dismissive of ongoing multilateral efforts by European and U.S. leaders.
Trump's suggestion that Putin is making a good-faith attempt to end the conflict ignores Russia’s track record of using peace talks as propaganda or stalling tactics. He presents Putin’s supposed willingness to negotiate as sincere, without evidence, while simultaneously casting doubt on Ukraine’s willingness to deal—an inversion of the real power dynamics at play. The historical aside regarding World War II is both jarring and misleading; while the United States played a crucial role in the Allied victory, Trump’s claim that the war could not have been won “not even close” without the U.S. erases the immense sacrifices made by the Soviet Union and its pivotal role on the Eastern Front. This comment seems intended more to inject American exceptionalism into the conversation than to offer historical clarity.
The post’s tone, punctuated by capitalized phrases like “BLOODBATH” and “HAVE THE MEETING, NOW!!!”, reflects Trump’s characteristic use of theatrical, hyperbolic language rather than measured statesmanship. Such rhetoric trivializes the seriousness of ongoing violence and undermines the credibility of diplomatic discourse. Finally, Trump’s implication that the U.S. and European allies are unaware of “where everything stands” undercuts ongoing intelligence work and diplomatic engagement, suggesting that a single photo-op styled negotiation could provide decisive clarity. Overall, the post encapsulates Trump’s populist style: emotionally charged, tactically simplistic, and unmoored from the realities of modern conflict and diplomacy.
In another Truth Social post issued Sunday morning, Donald Trump demonstrated yet another textbook example of incendiary political rhetoric that blends apocalyptic fearmongering, false claims, and authoritarian undertones into a single narrative aimed at delegitimizing judicial oversight and democratic norms.
First, the post’s claim that the country has been “invaded by 21,000,000 illegal aliens” lacks evidentiary basis. Estimates of the undocumented population vary but fall significantly below this number, and immigration—legal or otherwise—is not synonymous with an “invasion,” a term deliberately chosen to evoke martial panic and justify extralegal responses. The further assertion that “many” of these individuals are “Murderers and Criminals of the Highest Order” grossly mischaracterizes the immigrant population, reinforcing dangerous stereotypes that have been widely debunked by crime data and public safety research, which show that immigrants, including undocumented ones, are less likely to commit crimes than native-born citizens.
Second, Trump attacks the judicial branch by labeling it “radicalized and incompetent,” undermining the constitutional role of courts in upholding the rule of law and checking executive power. This echoes authoritarian logic: when legal decisions constrain a leader's agenda, the legitimacy of the entire judiciary is questioned. Trump’s assertion that “lawyers should state this FACT” before the Supreme Court politicizes legal advocacy and urges lawyers to repeat demonstrably false claims as if they were legitimate legal arguments.
Finally, the statement “If not, we won’t have a Country anymore” is a coercive rhetorical device suggesting that Trump’s continued leadership is the sole safeguard against national collapse. It is a direct challenge to constitutional checks and balances and implies that legal accountability equates to national destruction. This is capped off with the demagogic flourish of “MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!,” reinforcing a cult-of-personality appeal rather than a policy-oriented argument.
This post blends xenophobic panic, legal nihilism, and election denialism into a cohesive but deeply troubling narrative. It reflects not a political platform, but a threat to institutional democracy couched in authoritarian grievance.
Trump posted on Truth Social frequently throughout the day. Focusing on the economy, he presented a post filled with hyperbolic political messaging that prioritizes emotional impact and self-congratulation over economic coherence or factual substantiation. The claim that “trillions of dollars” and “record numbers of JOBS” have entered the U.S. economy within three months because of his tariff policy is implausible and economically ungrounded. Tariffs, by design, are taxes on imports paid by domestic consumers and businesses, not direct generators of foreign investment or job growth. While tariffs can, in some cases, incentivize reshoring or domestic production, they more often raise costs and provoke retaliatory trade measures, which undercut job creation in other sectors.
Additionally, Trump ties this alleged economic boom to the outcome of the “great November 5th Election WIN,” attempting to retroactively claim a mandate and fabricate a cause-and-effect narrative with no evidence. Asserting that Democrats are “totally unhinged” and “have lost all levels of Confidence” serves no purpose other than to inflame partisan tensions and dehumanize political opponents—an approach characteristic of authoritarian populist rhetoric.
Calling this moment a “financial REVOLUTION” is another grandiose flourish that collapses under scrutiny. Without data, legislative action, or clear international agreements to support this claim, the post reads more like campaign sloganeering than a serious economic update. In summary, Trump’s post is a self-promotional, factually unsupported declaration that relies on bombast and grievance rather than any verifiable economic reality.
The Trump administration is preparing to accept a luxurious Boeing 747-8 jumbo jet, valued at around $400 million, as a gift from Qatar’s royal family, potentially making it the most valuable gift ever given to the U.S. by a foreign government.
This proposed arrangement—accepting a $400 million “flying palace” from the Qatari royal family for eventual transfer to the Trump Presidential Library Foundation—raises serious ethical, constitutional, and political concerns, despite claims of legality.
First, while the administration’s legal advisors, including Attorney General Pam Bondi and White House Counsel David Warrington, assert that the gift does not violate the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause, their justification hinges on highly debatable distinctions. The fact that the plane is first gifted to the U.S. Air Force and then transferred to a private foundation closely associated with Trump does not negate the direct political and personal benefit he will receive. The transfer timeline—coinciding neatly with the end of his presidency—undermines the argument that the gift isn’t ultimately intended for Trump’s personal legacy.
Second, this blurs the line between public office and private gain. Even if technically legal, the optics are deeply troubling. The aircraft is to be used by Trump as Air Force One while he is president and then becomes property of his library—a clear example of how the presidency is being leveraged for private institutional benefit. This resembles influence-peddling cloaked in legality and invites perceptions of quid pro quo diplomacy, particularly with a foreign monarchy.
Third, the precedent is dangerous. If accepted, this opens the door for future presidents to solicit or accept extravagant gifts from foreign governments under the guise of benefiting government agencies or affiliated foundations. The Emoluments Clause exists precisely to avoid entanglements that could compromise U.S. sovereignty or a president’s independence. This gift not only sidesteps that constitutional safeguard but reinterprets it to suit political convenience.
Finally, the use of taxpayer funds to retrofit and maintain this jet, only to later transfer it to a private foundation, compounds the ethical dilemma. It effectively forces the public to subsidize a gift that will serve Trump’s personal and political brand long after he leaves office.
In sum, the legal green light given to this plan may satisfy the letter of the law, but it blatantly violates its spirit. The transaction is emblematic of a presidency that has routinely merged public office with private enrichment.
The summary of the U.S.-China trade talks highlights positive rhetoric but leaves several critical aspects underexplored. While both sides describe the talks as successful, with the U.S. touting “substantial progress” and China emphasizing “important consensus,” the lack of specific details raises questions about the actual significance of the meeting. Both sides agree that the talks were constructive, but no concrete outcomes were provided, particularly regarding the central issue of tariffs. The 145% U.S. tariff on Chinese goods and the 125% Chinese tariff on U.S. goods remain untouched, despite their significant impact on global supply chains and industries. This failure to address the tariffs casts doubt on whether the talks have resulted in meaningful trade relief.
The introduction of a new “consultation mechanism” for addressing future trade issues sounds promising, but lacks substance. Previous attempts at similar platforms have failed to bring about substantial reforms, particularly in shifting China's state-driven economic model. Without clear details on the functioning of this new forum, its effectiveness remains uncertain. The tone of the talks—described as “friendly, constructive”—may suggest an attempt at mending diplomatic relations, but this overlooks the fact that underlying trade tensions remain unresolved. The emphasis on the diplomatic setting in Switzerland risks overshadowing the reality that significant issues, such as the tariff rates and the trade imbalance, have not been adequately addressed.
Additionally, while the talks are framed as a step toward reducing the U.S. trade deficit, there is little focus on the long-term economic impact. The summary mentions the creation of a new platform but does not explore how this will lead to sustainable changes in the trade relationship. Moreover, the broader context of U.S. trade relations with other countries is briefly mentioned, with the U.S. planning other deals, but the summary fails to explore how the focus on China might affect opportunities with other nations. While the talks may have provided a diplomatic reset, the lack of transparency, substance, and concrete action makes it difficult to assess whether these discussions will result in lasting solutions to the ongoing trade conflict. The effectiveness of these talks will depend on follow-up actions and the implementation of the agreements discussed.
In his interview with Kristen Welker on Meet the Press, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy offered a deeply conflicted and, at times, incoherent account of the state of U.S. airspace infrastructure following outages at Newark Liberty International Airport. While he repeatedly assured viewers that flying is safe and that redundancies are in place, he simultaneously revealed a system under severe strain, citing radar and software failures, outdated equipment sourced from eBay, and a shortfall of 3,000 air traffic controllers. These contradictions—asserting safety while acknowledging glaring systemic failures—undermined his credibility and left the impression of a department struggling to maintain control.
Duffy admitted the air traffic control system is at least 50 years old and that critical telecommunications infrastructure is running on copper instead of high-speed fiber. Yet his plan to address these issues involves a multi-year, multi-billion-dollar overhaul that remains unfunded and dependent on congressional approval. While he noted a few immediate steps, like reducing flights in and out of Newark and building a direct data line to Philadelphia TRACON, he failed to provide clear timelines or quantifiable goals. When pressed on how long delays and flight reductions would last, his responses lacked precision, suggesting an absence of a comprehensive operational plan.
On staffing, Duffy’s answers were evasive and self-contradictory. He denied that FAA safety personnel were affected by budget cuts under Elon Musk’s directive, only to later admit that some probationary employees had, in fact, been fired and then re-hired. His insistence that “it isn’t chaotic” rang hollow in the face of widespread reports of near-misses, communication failures, and pilot stress. Duffy avoided answering whether Musk directly requested air traffic controller cuts, instead reframing the conversation as collegial and emphasizing their mutual understanding—an answer that sidestepped real concerns about political interference in aviation safety.
His attempts to humanize the impact of delays—claiming “I’ve done it myself”—came across as tone-deaf, especially given the gravity of the issues at hand. When asked about the January Black Hawk crash near Reagan National and a subsequent near-miss, he gave only a vague commitment to limiting helicopter flights during peak hours, offering no policy framework or regulatory changes to prevent future incidents in one of the nation's busiest airspaces.
To his credit, Duffy committed to raising the retirement age for air traffic controllers and expressed support for retention bonuses and expedited academy training. However, even these steps were presented without measurable benchmarks or contingency plans, highlighting a reactive rather than a strategic approach. While Duffy insisted the U.S. maintains the world’s safest airspace, his own testimony illustrated how fragile that status has become. The interview ultimately revealed a department aware of its problems but lacking a transparent, coordinated plan to solve them. Duffy’s rhetoric, often meandering and contradictory, failed to instill confidence in the government’s ability to prevent a more serious aviation crisis.
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick spoke with Dana Bash on CNN’s State of the Union in an interview that was marked by evasiveness, contradictions, and economically misleading claims that ultimately weakened the administration’s case for its tariff-driven trade policy. Despite being pressed repeatedly, Lutnick refused to offer any substantive details about the ongoing U.S.–China trade talks in Switzerland, opting instead to repeat vague assurances that the team “felt good” and that President Trump had declared a “total reset”—a phrase that went unexplained. The secretary’s consistent deferral to others and reluctance to confirm even the most general progress or concessions left viewers with nothing more than optimistic gestures rather than any grasp of actual policy movement.
Lutnick’s framing of the $1.2 trillion trade deficit as a national liability was also misleading. He portrayed the deficit as a unilateral loss, stating that it was “taking us down,” while ignoring that trade deficits often reflect strong consumer demand and are not inherently harmful to economic health. Economists broadly reject the notion that trade imbalances are zero-sum losses. Furthermore, Lutnick asserted that halts in Chinese imports were proof that the tariffs were working, only to pivot moments later and claim the administration expected those imports to resume shortly, depending on negotiations, undermining his earlier declaration. When challenged about the costs of tariffs being passed to consumers, he claimed “the businesses and the countries” primarily absorb the burden, contradicting industry evidence and company statements that the costs are frequently shifted to American buyers.
Throughout the interview, Lutnick relied heavily on aspirational language, peppering the conversation with phrases like “golden age,” “wonderful day,” and repeated Mother’s Day wishes. While humanizing, this rhetorical inflation often came at the expense of coherent policy explanation. He repeatedly insisted that President Trump’s policies would lead to widespread export opportunities and greater fairness, but offered no roadmap for how this would offset the immediate disruptions caused by reduced imports, especially during the summer consumer season.
His insistence that the administration would not lower tariffs below a 10% baseline—even while simultaneously claiming the U.S. would be flexible on a country-by-country basis—also raised concerns. It signaled an ideologically rigid approach rather than one based on mutual economic benefit or negotiation. Moreover, when inflation and consumer price increases were mentioned, Lutnick dismissed concerns, blaming any broader price hikes on “Biden inflation” and falsely claiming that 2019 saw the lowest inflation in history under Trump.
The interview revealed more about the administration’s messaging strategy than its policy depth. Lutnick’s performance came across more as a cheerleading effort than a serious explanation of trade dynamics or tariff impact. His repeated use of platitudes, denial of economic realities, and refusal to acknowledge the short-term burdens on consumers and workers undermined the credibility of the administration’s trade agenda. By failing to directly address costs or provide clarity on outcomes, Lutnick left the impression of an administration committed to symbolism over substance, and public relations over economic strategy.