What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
April 2, 2025 Recap
Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” speech, delivered from the White House lawn, was an ambitious and chaotic declaration of economic nationalism aimed squarely at working-class voters, especially unionized labor in swing states. The central premise was the announcement of a sweeping executive order that would impose "reciprocal tariffs" on foreign imports—framed by Trump as the beginning of America’s “economic independence.” While he celebrated the policy as a historic corrective to decades of trade “surrender,” the speech was riddled with economic distortions, historical revisionism, and theatrical populism. It served as both a campaign rally and a showcase of his second-term economic vision: a fortress economy built on tariffs, subsidies, and industrial protectionism.
At its core, the speech advances a simplistic, emotionally resonant idea: that foreign countries have been "cheating" the U.S. through unfair trade practices and that past American leaders failed to respond. Trump uses highly charged language—saying the U.S. has been “looted, pillaged, raped, and plundered”—to suggest a violent assault on American industry while promising that “those days are over.” His remedy is a global retaliatory trade structure: countries that charge higher tariffs or impose non-monetary trade barriers on American goods will now face matching tariffs from the United States. Trump insists this is “fair” and “reciprocal,” even though his policy only imposes about half the rate being charged by other nations. He frames this restraint as “kindness,” which paradoxically undermines his assertion that the U.S. is now taking a firm, no-nonsense stance. He also declares a universal 10% baseline tariff on all imports, regardless of country or product, to serve as a backstop and deterrent against future trade imbalances. While rhetorically powerful, these moves signal the beginning of a new era of protectionism with enormous risks for inflation, supply chains, and global trade stability.
Trump’s economic reasoning is fundamentally flawed. He repeatedly claims that tariffs will generate trillions in revenue, bring down the national debt, reduce taxes, and create massive job growth—all without causing inflation. This is a dangerous misunderstanding of basic economics. Tariffs are paid not by foreign governments but by U.S. importers, who pass the costs onto American consumers and businesses. Raising tariffs to 25% on foreign automobiles, for example, will make cars more expensive for middle-class families, not foreign automakers. Similarly, his claim that the price of eggs dropped 59% due to his administration’s intervention is unverified and suggests a misleading belief that the federal government directly controls commodity pricing. Furthermore, he offers no details about how these revenues will be allocated or what mechanisms are in place to prevent price gouging or supply hoarding as markets adjust.
The policy specifics are thin, but Trump emphasizes anecdotal support from CEOs and labor unions to suggest that his plan is already working. He cites purported commitments from companies like Apple, Nvidia, Meta, and Johnson & Johnson to invest “hundreds of billions” or “trillions” in domestic manufacturing—numbers that strain credibility and are offered without documentation. These announcements are attributed to “the election of November 5th and the tariffs,” which conflates political speculation with actual capital investment decisions. The speech suggests, implausibly, that merely announcing tariffs has triggered an industrial renaissance. In reality, reshoring production is a multi-year process involving land use, regulatory hurdles, labor force training, and infrastructure—not the spontaneous boom Trump implies.
Historically, Trump paints a revisionist picture of U.S. economic policy. He argues that the United States reached peak wealth when it relied exclusively on tariffs for federal revenue (1789–1913) and claims that abandoning tariffs led to the Great Depression. Most economists agree that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which raised hundreds of tariffs during a global downturn, worsened the Depression by stifling trade and triggering retaliation. Trump’s nostalgic appeal to a pre-income-tax era ignores the complexity of a 21st-century global economy and vastly overstates the government’s ability to sustain itself on tariff revenue alone. He also claims the U.S. is now unable to manufacture basic goods like antibiotics or semiconductors, which he frames as both a national security risk and a failure of free trade—yet he glosses over the role of deregulation, offshoring, and corporate incentives in creating these vulnerabilities.
Throughout the speech, Trump mixes policy proposals with campaign-style grievance and self-congratulation. He repeatedly refers to past victories in swing states like Michigan, name-drops union members in the audience, and praises his administration’s handling of everything from agriculture to border security. He singles out foreign leaders such as Narendra Modi and the late Shinzo Abe to demonstrate personal relationships while simultaneously accusing their countries of exploiting the U.S. through unfair trade. He promises new tax cuts, declares that Medicare and Social Security will remain untouched, and claims the U.S. is already undergoing a $6 trillion manufacturing transformation—again, with no data to support the claim. He concludes by promising “the most incredible bill ever passed in the history of Congress,” a vaguely defined package of tax cuts, subsidies, and regulatory changes that have not yet been released.
One of the most disturbing elements of the speech is Trump’s casual, authoritarian tone. He threatens ten-year jail sentences for customs officials who "cheat" the new tariff system, suggesting a lack of trust in federal workers and an aggressive posture toward internal enforcement. He calls this day “Liberation Day,” drawing parallels to national uprisings or wartime declarations of freedom—an extreme framing for what is essentially a trade policy announcement. The implication is that America has been occupied or colonized economically and is now reclaiming its sovereignty, a narrative that fuels economic isolationism and frames diplomacy as weakness. This kind of language, coupled with threats of retaliation against foreign nations and disparagement of domestic institutions, signals a broader move toward a hyper-nationalist economic worldview that could damage U.S. credibility and cooperation on the world stage.
Trump’s Liberation Day speech is economically reckless, historically dishonest, and policy-wise underdeveloped. His reciprocal tariff plan lacks transparency, his claims of industrial revival are inflated, and his historical references are selectively distorted to fit a narrative of American victimhood. The speech is more theater than policy, filled with emotional appeals, political blame, and nationalistic fervor. Its real danger lies in its manipulation of economic anger into a blunt-force policy tool that could spark trade wars, raise consumer prices, and disrupt global supply chains, all while failing to deliver the promised economic revival. In short, this was not a roadmap for sustainable growth—it was a rallying cry for a fortress economy led by a cult of personality, not a coherent national strategy.
After the Liberation Day ceremony, Trump signed executive orders on reciprocal tariffs and trade restrictions—particularly the sweeping imposition of a 10% across-the-board tariff and the targeted crackdown on low-value imports from China—marking a dramatic escalation of his economic nationalist agenda. Framed as a response to a declared national emergency, the orders invoke expansive statutory powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and the National Emergencies Act (NEA). While these legal authorities are broad, their use to address long-standing trade deficits raises serious concerns. While politically potent, trade deficits are not inherently a national security threat. Declaring them as such stretches the intent of emergency statutes and risks normalizing executive overreach in economic governance.
Economically, the rationale rests on a selective reading of trade dynamics. Trump argues that decades of non-reciprocal trade arrangements and foreign tariff and non-tariff barriers have “hollowed out” U.S. manufacturing. While there is truth in the observation that other nations maintain higher tariff rates and impose various barriers to U.S. exports, the argument ignores the multifaceted causes of industrial decline—chief among them domestic policy failures in workforce development, infrastructure, and innovation. Moreover, economic consensus does not support the notion that trade deficits alone cause job loss and deindustrialization. Trade deficits often reflect strong domestic demand and investment inflows, and correcting them through blanket tariffs risks raising consumer prices, slowing supply chains, and inviting retaliatory measures from key allies.
The orders are clearly constructed with a sophisticated bureaucratic framework. However, the execution is likely to strain administrative capacity, particularly in Customs and Border Protection (C B P), which will be tasked with verifying U.S. content percentages and enforcing preferential exemptions. The policy’s flat 10% duty, with additional country-specific surcharges in Annex I, appears arbitrary and politically motivated rather than data-driven. It is likely to disrupt supply chains and disincentivize U.S. participation in global production networks.
Geopolitically, the executive order risks alienating close allies and undermining World Trade Organization (W T O) norms. While Trump asserts the policy is about restoring balance, applying duties to imports from countries like the EU, Japan, and South Korea—while exempting certain sectors only selectively—may provoke trade disputes and retaliatory tariffs. The order fundamentally challenges the W T O’s most-favored-nation (M F N) principle and could lead to litigation or a breakdown in global trade cooperation. This approach reinforces Trump's bilateralist worldview but does so in an increasingly multipolar context, where the United States may need partners more than ever to confront global challenges, including supply chain resilience and technological competitiveness vis-à-vis China.
The related executive order targeting low-value imports from the People’s Republic of China as a means of combating the synthetic opioid crisis is similarly flawed. It attempts to close the de minimis loophole, which allows imports under $800 to enter duty-free. This is a legitimate concern, as traffickers exploit low-value thresholds and postal networks to ship fentanyl precursors. However, the solution—making transportation carriers responsible for collecting duties—adds a novel and cumbersome compliance burden and may do little to stop the flow of illicit substances unless paired with broader international enforcement and public health strategies. The crackdown risks conflating customs reform with drug policy in a way that may be more symbolic than effective.
Ultimately, these executive actions represent a return to Trump’s 2017–2021 doctrine of economic nationalism, but with even more sweeping enforcement tools and fewer diplomatic guardrails. The legal foundation is forceful but raises questions about statutory abuse. The economic reasoning is consistent with protectionist ideology but weak on empirical grounding. The geopolitical implications are troubling, especially in their disregard for multilateral norms and alliance politics. The orders reflect a coherent ideological posture that prioritizes short-term political optics over long-term economic and strategic stability.
U.S. stock futures plummeted after Trump announced the sweeping new tariffs. The announcement, which comes amid signs of a slowing U.S. economy, raised fears of a global trade war. Dow futures dropped over 1000 points, S&P 500 futures fell 3.4%, and Nasdaq futures sank 4.3%. Major multinational companies were hit hard in extended trading—Apple fell 6%, Nike lost 7%, Tesla dropped 5%, and retailers heavily reliant on imports such as Gap and Five Below plunged 12% and 11%, respectively.
At a White House press conference, Trump clarified that the additional tariffs would amount to about half the rate other countries charge the U.S., factoring in tariffs, non-monetary barriers, and other trade restrictions. This resulted in an effective tariff rate of 54% for China, far higher than the 10%-20% range traders had expected as a cap. The surprise severity and complexity of the tariffs rattled investors, with analysts calling the rollout one of the administration's most chaotic moves yet.
The market had been rebounding on hopes that Trump would opt for a more moderate trade approach to avoid exacerbating inflation and economic slowdown. Instead, the aggressive tariff policy reignited fears of recession and further market volatility. The S&P 500, already in correction territory from late February due to tariff-related uncertainty, is now expected to fall deeper when regular trading resumes, as the scope and unpredictability of the new measures shake investor confidence.
Donald Trump’s late-night Truth Social post is a textbook example of his combative, grievance-driven political messaging. Framed as a call to action against fellow Republicans, the post attacks Senators Mitch McConnell, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and Rand Paul for not aligning with what he describes as “Republican Values and Ideals.” However, the substance of his argument is muddled and misleading. Trump claims that Canada is flooding the U.S. with fentanyl and insists that the country should be penalized through tariffs based on “the value of this horrible and deadly drug.” This notion is not only unworkable but fundamentally incoherent—tariffs apply to legal, regulated goods, not illicit substances like fentanyl, which are trafficked through black markets and evading all customs oversight.
By suggesting that these senators are aiding the Democrats and drug cartels, Trump veers into demagoguery, framing a nuanced legislative debate as a matter of existential betrayal. He fails to name or explain the Senate bill he’s criticizing, opting instead to dismiss it as a Democratic “ploy” intended to expose Republican weakness. This lack of specificity reveals that the post is less about actual policy and more about maintaining loyalty and punishing dissent within his party. Trump’s rhetorical strategy here is to stoke fear and anger—asking supporters to pressure their senators not on the merits of a bill but on the basis of personal allegiance to him.
Perhaps most concerning is his framing of disagreement as a form of disloyalty, not only to him personally but to the Republican Party and the country at large. This conflation of partisan identity with blind loyalty to Trump is part of a broader authoritarian tendency, where institutions, checks and balances, and even fellow conservatives are treated as obstacles if they do not submit to his will. His reference to “Trump Derangement Syndrome” dismisses principled opposition as irrational hatred, further polarizing debate and foreclosing meaningful discussion. In short, Trump offers no serious solution to the opioid crisis, misrepresents the nature of fentanyl trafficking, and uses the issue as a vehicle to target intra-party dissent. The post is a political weapon, not a policy statement.
A federal judge in Northern California has temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s attempt to cut off legal aid for unaccompanied migrant children, ruling that the move likely violates federal law and would cause irreparable harm.
The Department of the Interior had ordered the Acacia Center for Justice to stop work under a contract providing legal representation to migrant minors. Eleven subcontractor organizations sued, citing the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA), which mandates legal protections for such children.
Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín sided with the plaintiffs, stating the administration’s termination of funding obstructed the organizations’ mission and potentially violated congressional directives. She dismissed the government’s claim that continuing the funding would harm its interests, emphasizing that maintaining unlawful agency action is not in the public interest.
Over 100,000 people have urged Congress to restore legal protections, and advocates warn that with fast-tracked deportations increasing, vulnerable children are at heightened risk without legal representation.
Milbank LLP, one of the nation's major law firms, has reached an agreement with President Donald Trump amid his broader campaign targeting firms perceived as hostile to his administration. Announced by Trump on social media, the deal requires Milbank to provide $100 million in pro bono legal services for mutually agreed-upon causes such as assisting veterans and combating antisemitism. Additionally, the firm agreed to refrain from participating in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. Trump claimed Milbank had initiated the conversation, while Milbank Chairman Scott Edelman assured employees in a letter that the firm only committed to actions it was comfortable with. Trump cited Edelman’s remarks as evidence of a cooperative spirit, describing the talks as “constructive.”
This agreement further highlights a growing divide in the legal community over how to respond to Trump’s executive orders aimed at law firms with ties to lawsuits against his policies. So far, Trump has signed executive orders targeting five such firms, with three—Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, and Jenner & Block—filing lawsuits in response. Judges have since issued rulings blocking major provisions of those orders. Another firm, Paul Weiss, negotiated a resolution, while Covington & Burling has not yet taken legal action. Milbank joins Willkie Farr & Gallagher and Skadden Arps as firms that reached agreements with Trump without being formally targeted by an order. Willkie Farr’s agreement was disclosed a day earlier and drew additional attention due to the presence of former Vice President Kamala Harris’s husband, Doug Emhoff, as a partner at the firm.
Milbank is also involved in ongoing litigation against the Trump administration. Partner Neal Katyal, a well-known critic of Trump and former acting U.S. Solicitor General under President Obama, is representing Cathy Harris, who was removed by Trump from a federal personnel board. Katyal previously argued against Trump’s travel ban during his first term. Although he did not comment on the Milbank agreement, his presence underscores the internal tensions between the firm’s political and professional affiliations and its new obligations under the Trump deal. Milbank’s recent hiring of Gurbir Grewal, a former Biden SEC enforcement official, has also drawn criticism from Trump allies who accuse the SEC of targeting cryptocurrency firms too aggressively. The controversy over these executive orders continues to raise constitutional concerns, as several firms argue that Trump’s actions are retaliatory and violate First and Fifth Amendment protections.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit dismissed the Trump administration’s appeal of a temporary restraining order (T R O) that blocks the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from accessing sensitive Social Security Administration (S S A) data. The case, filed by unions and retiree advocacy groups, including AFSCME, A F T, and the Alliance for Retired Americans, will proceed in district court. A motion for a preliminary injunction is expected soon.
The T R O, issued by Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander on March 20, prohibits DOGE and associated personnel from accessing or retaining personally identifiable information (P I I), like Social Security numbers, medical and tax records, and bank information. It also requires the deletion of any non-anonymized P I I in DOGE’s possession.
Democracy Forward criticized the Trump administration for bypassing standard legal procedures in its appeal, which was denied. Meanwhile, SSA Acting Commissioner Lee Dudek falsely claimed the order could shut down the agency but was corrected by the judge, who clarified it applies only to employees working with DOGE. Dudek has since confirmed SSA operations will continue.
A White House spokesperson reiterated that the president will pursue all legal avenues to enforce what it called “the will of the American people.” SSA declined to comment.