What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
April 17, 2025 Recap
Donald Trump’s early morning Truth Social post reflected his characteristic use of inflammatory rhetoric and economic oversimplification. It underscored both a lack of nuance in his understanding of monetary policy and a recurring attempt to scapegoat Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell. Referring to Powell as “Too Late Jerome” and calling for his termination was not only unpresidential in tone but also disregarded the independence of the Federal Reserve, a critical principle in maintaining economic stability and credibility in global markets.
Trump’s assertion that the U.S. was “getting rich on tariffs” misrepresented the economic reality. Tariffs were essentially taxes on imports paid by domestic businesses and consumers, not foreign governments. While they could generate revenue for the federal government in the short term, they often led to higher prices, retaliatory tariffs, and long-term economic inefficiencies — all of which undermined economic growth and harmed consumers.
Additionally, Trump’s comparison between the European Central Bank and the Federal Reserve oversimplified the distinct contexts in which these institutions operated. The ECB’s rate cuts were a response to stagnation and disinflation in Europe, while the Federal Reserve’s policy decisions were based on domestic indicators, including inflation, employment, and growth trends. The Fed’s caution in cutting rates amid ongoing inflation concerns was rooted in its dual mandate, not political convenience.
Finally, the claim that Powell’s recent report was a “complete mess” remained entirely unsupported. Trump offered no substantive critique of the report’s content or its data, relying instead on personal attacks and exclamation points to drive his message. This kind of messaging contributes little to public understanding of economic policy and erodes trust in technocratic institutions that relied on stability, not spectacle.
The bilateral meeting between Donald Trump and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, while containing some productive elements, was marred by Trump's rhetoric and self-centered commentary, which undermined the diplomatic significance of the discussions. On the surface, the leaders touched on critical issues such as trade, defense, and migration, with both agreeing on the importance of tackling illegal migration and Meloni presenting Italy’s success in reducing migration flows. However, Trump's over-the-top claims about the economic success of his administration, especially his focus on tariffs and border control, came off as political grandstanding rather than genuine diplomatic engagement. His constant need to compare his administration favorably against the Biden administration only served to turn the conversation into a political attack, diminishing the credibility of the dialogue on global issues.
Moreover, Trump’s attempt to dominate the conversation with personal grievances, including his ongoing criticism of Jerome Powell and the Federal Reserve, further undermined the tone of the meeting. While these issues are certainly important to U.S. domestic policy, they were completely out of place in a diplomatic setting with a foreign leader. By bringing up these domestic concerns, Trump deflected attention from the substantive topics at hand and signaled a disregard for the larger issues of international cooperation that should have been the focus of this meeting.
Additionally, Trump's frequent assertions that the Ukraine war would never have occurred under his leadership were not only speculative but dangerously simplistic. His rhetoric glossed over the complex geopolitical realities of the conflict, undermining his credibility as a global statesman. His comments suggesting that he could have single-handedly prevented the war failed to address the nuanced diplomatic and military considerations at play, instead reflecting his tendency to reduce complex international conflicts to personal boasts and oversimplified narratives. This kind of rhetoric, particularly when discussing a conflict with enormous human costs, risks alienating international partners and creating a false sense of certainty where none exists.
Even in his exchanges with Meloni, Trump’s language seemed dismissive at times, particularly when he focused excessively on immigration as a divisive issue. While Meloni’s comments were more measured and reflective of a desire to collaborate, Trump repeatedly veered into attacks on European immigration policies, framing them as failures without offering meaningful solutions or acknowledging the complexities of the issue. His approach turned what could have been a productive discussion on shared goals into a platform for personal political points, undermining the potential for genuine cooperation.
While the meeting between Trump and Meloni covered significant topics, Trump’s rhetoric and focus on personal achievements and grievances detracted from its diplomatic potential. His tone was more reflective of a politician rallying his base than a leader engaging in meaningful international diplomacy. His disregard for the broader, more nuanced context of international relations and his tendency to dominate the conversation with self-serving commentary ultimately diminished the effectiveness of this high-level meeting. A more focused, collaborative, and respectful approach would have served the interests of both leaders and their respective nations far better.
Donald Trump's Restoring American Seafood Competitiveness executive order presents itself as a bold initiative to revive domestic fishing industries. However, beneath its rhetoric lies a problematic mix of deregulatory overreach, environmental rollback, and economic nationalism. The order opens with sweeping claims that federal regulations are the primary force suppressing American seafood competitiveness, blaming restrictive catch limits, outdated data, and offshore wind development for the industry’s struggles. However, this framing distorts the rationale behind these regulations, many of which exist to ensure long-term sustainability of fish stocks and compliance with conservation laws like the Magnuson-Stevens Act. By painting environmental safeguards as burdens, the administration implies that commercial productivity and ecological responsibility are mutually exclusive, when in fact, science-based regulation has helped preserve viable fish populations for decades.
A particularly concerning element of the order is its push to review and potentially reopen marine national monuments to commercial fishing, threatening protected marine ecosystems established under the Antiquities Act. This signals a continuation of Trump-era efforts to dismantle conservation protections under the guise of economic revitalization, while failing to address the scientific reasoning that underpins these designations. Moreover, the order’s revival of “America First” language in its proposed seafood trade strategy aligns with the administration’s broader pattern of protectionist and unilateral policies. Although it claims to target unfair foreign trade practices and illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing, its preference for punitive measures, such as invoking Section 301 of the Trade Act, over international collaboration weakens prospects for effective global enforcement against labor abuse and environmental violations in the seafood industry.
The order’s call for modernizing data collection and incorporating cooperative research could have merit if grounded in scientific rigor, yet it lacks safeguards to prevent politicization of fisheries science. The vague language around “cooperative” programs raises the risk that industry-favorable data could be prioritized over objective environmental assessments. Compounding this concern is the directive to revise the Seafood Import Monitoring Program (SIMP), a key tool for blocking IUU-sourced products. Weakening SIMP contradicts the administration’s stated goals of strengthening supply chain integrity and combating illegal fishing. Instead, it signals regulatory capture by the very industry actors that benefit from reduced oversight.
Lastly, like many of Trump’s executive orders, this directive ends with a sweeping legal disclaimer that it creates no enforceable rights or obligations, further indicating its symbolic rather than substantive nature. The order advances an ideologically charged agenda prioritizing short-term commercial gain and nationalist optics over science, sustainability, and rule-based governance. Rather than restoring competitiveness, it risks undermining the legal and ecological frameworks that have sustained U.S. fisheries for generations.
Source: White House Briefing Room
Donald Trump issued a proclamation rolling back commercial fishing restrictions in the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument, marking a significant erosion of U.S. marine conservation policy. Framed as a correction to benefit American fishermen and Pacific territories like American Samoa, the proclamation claims that commercial fishing no longer threatens the monument’s protected ecosystems. However, this rationale is scientifically unsound and legally questionable. It downplays the value of marine protected areas and ignores the role of PRIMNM in safeguarding biodiversity, particularly for species that rely on undisturbed habitats.
The proclamation circumvents established environmental review processes and effectively nullifies a key conservation tool created under the Antiquities Act. While the Act allows presidents to establish monuments, whether it allows them to revoke or weaken protections is unresolved, and they will likely face legal challenges. The economic argument presented—focused on competition with foreign fleets and access to U.S. waters—is used to justify deregulation, but it ignores the long-term sustainability and ecological importance of protected zones. Moreover, the order politicizes federal agencies by directing them to repeal regulations without requiring scientific review or stakeholder input.
The proclamation prioritizes short-term industry gains over ecological integrity and national conservation goals by restoring commercial access to hundreds of thousands of square miles of previously protected waters. It weakens the United States’ credibility in global marine protection efforts and represents a regressive shift in environmental policy at a time when ocean conservation is more critical than ever.
Source: White House Briefing Room
Donald Trump issued a memorandum extending the federal hiring freeze through July 15, which presents itself as a measure to improve efficiency and restore merit-based hiring, but reveals deeper contradictions. While claiming to preserve essential services, it offers vague guidance on how agencies will maintain operations without new hires, creating uncertainty and potential bottlenecks. Broad exemptions for immigration enforcement, national security, and the Executive Office of the President suggest selective application and political favoritism. The memo also allows continued hiring for political appointees and non-career positions, raising concerns about increased politicization of the federal workforce. The directive burdens agencies without offering meaningful flexibility by blocking new hires while demanding greater efficiency. Rather than enhancing governance, it consolidates control at the top and weakens the neutrality of the civil service.
Source: White House Briefing Room
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that the Trump administration must return Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the United States, rejecting the administration's attempt to overturn a lower court decision. Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man, had been deported despite a court order protecting him from removal. The U.S. District Court had directed his return, and after an appeal, the Supreme Court unanimously sided with the lower court, reinforcing the decision.
In response, Abrego Garcia's legal team has demanded answers from the Trump administration regarding its failure to comply. The Fourth Circuit Court chastised the administration for trying to obstruct a clear directive, emphasizing that it would not "micromanage" the order for his return.
Meanwhile, Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen traveled to El Salvador in an attempt to visit Abrego Garcia, but armed soldiers blocked him at a checkpoint near the prison where Garcia is being held. Van Hollen had hoped to meet with Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele to check Garcia's well-being, but was denied access. This incident has sparked further concerns over Garcia's treatment and communication with the outside world, as he has had no contact since his abduction and deportation.
In addition to these developments, Van Hollen and other U.S. officials are demanding proof of life from the Department of Homeland Security, with 17 members of the Maryland House of Delegates joining the call for assurances about Garcia's health and safety. The Trump administration has presented court documents alleging that Garcia had a history of domestic violence and ties to MS-13, but Van Hollen insists that Garcia has not received due process. He plans to continue pushing for his case upon his return to the U.S.
The Supreme Court has temporarily upheld President Donald Trump's restrictions on birthright citizenship but agreed to hear arguments on the matter in May. Trump's executive order aimed to end birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents who are in the country illegally, but lower courts have blocked the policy. The Trump administration sought to narrow the order's impact, allowing it to take effect in some areas while legal challenges continue.
Birthright citizenship, granted by the 14th Amendment, automatically gives U.S. citizenship to anyone born in the country, including the children of undocumented immigrants. Trump argues that the 14th Amendment, ratified after the Civil War, was primarily focused on slavery and that children of noncitizens are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S., thus not entitled to citizenship.
The administration's push to alter birthright citizenship has faced strong opposition from states, immigrant rights groups, and legal experts. These groups claim it threatens the long-established interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Some critics argue that the administration's actions could create a confusing patchwork of state-based rules on citizenship.
The Justice Department has argued that individual judges do not have the power to issue nationwide injunctions and wants the Supreme Court to allow the policy to take effect, at least in states where no lawsuits have been filed. The case, however, raises questions about the validity of the order itself, which the court will likely address in its hearing. This decision comes amid numerous lawsuits challenging various aspects of the Trump administration's policies.
The Trump administration placed most AmeriCorps staffers on administrative leave with pay, marking another move in the government's downsizing efforts. AmeriCorps, an independent agency under federal control, provides stipends for volunteers involved in various service projects. Interim head Jennifer Bastress Tahmasebi informed employees in an internal email that they were to remain on "excused absence" and prohibited from accessing AmeriCorps premises or systems without prior permission. Only a small number of employees remain to help wind down operations. This action follows a similar strategy used to close the U.S. Agency for International Development. The National Civilian Community Corps, part of AmeriCorps' disaster relief efforts, also sent volunteers home early. The Department of Government Efficiency, tasked with identifying government waste, has been involved in overseeing these measures, which have the backing of tech entrepreneur Elon Musk, who also supported the closure of USAID.
The Trump administration has threatened to ban Harvard University from enrolling foreign students after the university refused to comply with demands from President Donald Trump's administration regarding antisemitism on campus. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem requested records on the alleged "illegal and violent" activities of foreign student visa-holders at Harvard. Noem warned that the university would lose the "privilege" of enrolling international students if it did not provide the records.
Harvard has defended its stance, stating that it has taken steps to address antisemitism and that the demands were an attempt to regulate its "intellectual conditions." Harvard President Alan Garber affirmed the university’s commitment to its independence and constitutional rights, rejecting any surrender to external pressures. The government’s threats include a freeze on $2.2 billion in federal funding and potential removal of Harvard's valuable tax exemption, which could result in significant financial losses. Harvard has argued that there is no legal basis for removing its tax exemption and that such a move would hinder its educational mission.
This is part of a broader government push targeting universities, particularly those with pro-Palestinian protests. The administration has identified over 60 universities for review in connection with antisemitism issues. Trump’s administration has frequently criticized universities for being hostile to conservative viewpoints, and other institutions, like Columbia University, have already made concessions to avoid funding cuts. Despite some adjustments, Harvard has refused to comply fully with the administration's list of demands.
Trump is a busy guy and I am thoroughly fed up with him and his minions.