What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
April 25, 2025 Recap
Time Magazine published an interview with Donald Trump revealing a deeply troubling portrait of executive overreach, economic incoherence, and authoritarian rationalizations dressed up as campaign promises. Throughout the conversation, Trump consistently deflects accountability and reframes legitimate questions about the rule of law as attacks on his electoral mandate. His repeated insistence that he is not expanding presidential power—but merely “using it properly” or fulfilling his campaign pledges—serves as a thin justification for actions that bypass Congress, undermine judicial authority, and politicize federal enforcement mechanisms. Particularly concerning is his casual dismissal of a unanimous Supreme Court ruling requiring the return of a deported asylum seeker, with Trump claiming he “leaves that to his lawyers,” signaling a dangerous abdication of constitutional responsibility while maintaining plausible deniability.
Trump’s discussion of economic policy reveals little in the way of coherent strategy or data-driven analysis. His boasts about securing “200 deals” and attracting “$7 trillion” of new investment remain completely unsubstantiated, and his explanations for the economic impact of tariffs amount to little more than circular logic. Instead of addressing the instability caused by unpredictable tariff regimes, Trump leans on anecdotal meetings with CEOs and vague promises of future prosperity. His “department store” metaphor, where he sets the price for doing business with the United States, reduces complex global trade dynamics to a transactional model devoid of long-term planning or structural understanding. When pressed on the harmful effects of his policies on small businesses and American consumers, Trump offers little more than bluster, repeatedly circling back to slogans about making the country “rich again” without explaining how these outcomes will materialize.
Perhaps the most alarming section of the interview concerns Trump’s immigration and deportation policies. His language is dehumanizing, characterizing migrants as inherently violent and repeatedly describing them as killers “who wouldn’t even think about it.” More shocking is his open musing about outsourcing the incarceration of American citizens to foreign prisons such as El Salvador’s CECOT facility, a practice he claims would save money and serve as an effective deterrent. Despite acknowledging that such actions may not be lawful, Trump expresses a willingness to explore the idea, demonstrating a chilling comfort with testing the outer limits of legality and human rights protections in pursuit of punitive objectives.
The interview also underscores Trump’s reliance on deflection and false equivalencies when confronted with difficult questions, particularly regarding his decision to pardon violent January 6 offenders. Rather than grappling with the specific legal and moral implications of these pardons, Trump pivots to grievances about left-wing protests in cities like Portland and Seattle, employing whataboutism to justify his actions. His continued use of conspiracy rhetoric—accusing the January 6 committee of destroying evidence and branding them as “political scum”—further illustrates his unwillingness to engage with legitimate oversight or accountability.
Factually, the interview is riddled with exaggerations, misrepresentations, and outright falsehoods. Trump’s economic claims frequently contradict the assessments of independent bodies like the IMF and the Atlanta Fed. His portrayal of inflation trends and tariff revenue lacks credible support, and his description of the Russia-Ukraine conflict as “Biden’s war” ignores the broader geopolitical context while absolving himself of any responsibility. Even when confronted with direct quotations from Supreme Court rulings or his own previous statements, Trump either denies having said them or claims ignorance, further eroding the integrity of the dialogue.
Trump’s imperial ambitions, including talk of acquiring Greenland, controlling the Panama Canal, or annexing Canada, oscillate between provocative trolling and disturbingly sincere nationalist fantasy. His comments suggest a willingness to entertain territorial expansion as a serious policy goal, raising questions about his respect for international law and global stability. This vision of America as a dominant empire feeds into the same authoritarian impulses that underpin much of his rhetoric on trade, immigration, and governance.
Perhaps most striking is Trump’s brazen embrace of coercion as a governing tool. His discussion of law firms providing pro bono work or large financial settlements to avoid lawsuits reveals an abuse of presidential leverage for personal and political gain. Rather than denying the coercive nature of these arrangements, Trump defends them as pragmatic, confirming the perception that he views the presidency as a personal power center rather than a constitutional office bound by impartiality and law.
Finally, the interview exposes Trump’s ongoing hostility toward the press and democratic norms. His repeated accusations of bias against the interviewers, coupled with his refusal to clearly disavow interest in a third term, reinforce a pattern of undermining constitutional limits and casting himself as uniquely entitled to wield power. Even his rejection of the foundational principle articulated by John Adams—that America is a government of laws, not of men—reveals a fundamentally transactional and personalized understanding of power, where laws are tools to be administered by “honest men like me,” rather than constraints on the ambitions of any individual.
The interview does not reflect the thoughtful leadership or principled policymaking of a statesman but rather the defensive, grievance-fueled posturing of a leader whose primary concern is the consolidation of power and personal vindication. Trump’s responses consistently prioritize self-interest, defiance of institutional norms, and the projection of strength over the foundational values of democratic governance. The result is a portrait of an administration driven less by policy outcomes than authoritarian instincts and a profound disdain for accountability.
Donald Trump held a press gaggle aboard Air Force One on the way to Rome, highlighting many of the persistent issues that characterize his approach to presidential communication: evasiveness, factual inaccuracy, self-promotion, and a troubling hostility toward judicial oversight. Rather than providing substantive answers, Trump frequently deflects, pivots to unrelated grievances, or engages in boastful rhetoric that reduces complex policy matters to simplistic slogans. His comments regarding the funeral of the Pope, for example, quickly shift from a discussion of diplomatic respect to self-congratulatory claims about winning the “Catholic vote”—an assertion both historically dubious and inappropriate in the context of honoring a global religious figure. Similarly, while claiming that holding political meetings during the funeral would be disrespectful, Trump simultaneously admits he plans to meet with multiple leaders while in Rome, exposing his habitual contradictions and lack of message discipline.
Throughout the exchange, Trump demonstrates a striking lack of preparedness on major global issues, admitting, for instance, that he is only learning about the car bombing that killed a Russian general from the press corps itself. His evasion of questions about diplomatic progress with China and Iran is equally telling. Rather than offering details about negotiations, he falls back on vague platitudes about “good deals” and expresses more concern about whether the press will “give me credit” than about the substance of international relations. On sensitive issues like humanitarian access to Gaza, Trump’s remarks remain superficial, offering little more than a noncommittal assertion that “we gotta be good to Gaza,” without meaningful discussion of U.S. policy, leverage with Israel, or humanitarian strategy.
One of the more troubling aspects of Trump’s remarks is his continued attack on the judiciary, especially regarding immigration policy. His frustration with federal judges who insist on due process rights for migrants leads him to belittle these judges as attention-seeking nobodies and to question their authority to impose nationwide injunctions. This rhetoric misrepresents legal realities and reflects his broader authoritarian impulse to reject checks on executive power. His assertion that “millions of trials” are being forced upon the government by the courts is a gross exaggeration designed to inflame public opinion and justify aggressive deportation policies without legal accountability.
Trump’s economic commentary, particularly on tariffs, continues his pattern of misrepresentation and economic nationalism. His repeated claim that the U.S. was “losing $5 billion a day” under Biden, and his promise to flip this into a $5 billion daily gain, are unsupported by credible data and reflect a simplistic view of international trade. His portrayal of tariffs as unequivocal wins ignores the well-documented economic consequences of protectionist policies, including higher costs for American consumers and retaliation from trade partners. Moreover, his repeated suggestion that the media will unfairly deny him credit, even if he achieves unprecedented success, reveals that his primary concern remains personal vindication rather than economic strategy.
This gaggle exemplifies Trump’s characteristic blend of bluster, grievance, and transactional thinking. His unwillingness or inability to engage thoughtfully with policy questions, open disdain for judicial oversight, and reliance on fear-mongering over immigration and trade underscore a style of governance driven by self-interest and authoritarian leanings rather than factual rigor or diplomatic responsibility. Rather than projecting the image of a statesman, Trump once again presents himself as a reactive, grievance-fueled figure more concerned with headlines and personal loyalty than with substantive leadership.
The arrest of Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan by the FBI marks yet another troubling episode in the Trump administration’s aggressive campaign to criminalize local resistance to its immigration enforcement agenda. This case, at its core, is less about upholding the "rule of law" and more about leveraging federal power to intimidate the judiciary and chill dissent among state and local officials who refuse to act as enforcers of Trump’s deportation policies.
The charges against Judge Dugan—that she obstructed federal authorities by allegedly guiding a defendant, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, through a non-public courthouse exit—are being framed by the administration as a matter of law and order. However, this framing is disingenuous. The real message being sent is one of coercion: that judges who challenge or even question the role of ICE in local courts can expect personal reprisals. The optics of FBI agents arresting a sitting judge on courthouse grounds are not merely “gravely serious,” as Senator Tammy Baldwin rightly observed—they represent a drastic overreach that threatens the constitutional balance between the executive and judicial branches.
Governor Tony Evers was correct to call out the Trump administration’s use of “dangerous rhetoric” against the judiciary. The use of armed federal agents in a courthouse setting is not a neutral act of law enforcement; it is a calculated show of force designed to send a chilling message to other judges, attorneys, and court personnel who may prioritize due process over Trump’s immigration dragnet. The administration’s repeated attempts to prosecute judges for perceived interference in immigration arrests, as seen in the earlier Massachusetts case against Judge Shelley Joseph, reveal a disturbing pattern of politicized justice.
The administration’s claim that “no one is above the law” rings hollow when viewed against the context of these selective prosecutions. It is not applying this principle uniformly but weaponizing it against those who do not align with its political objectives. The charges against Dugan—particularly the allegation that she was “angry” about the presence of ICE agents and therefore committed a federal crime—underscore the pettiness and vindictiveness driving this prosecution.
Moreover, this episode exemplifies how the Trump administration continues to erode trust in the court system, especially among immigrant communities. As Emilio De Torre of Milwaukee Turners pointed out, the militarization of court spaces deters vulnerable individuals from seeking justice, attending hearings, or resolving legal matters out of fear of arrest. The sanctity of the courtroom as a neutral space for adjudication—not an extension of federal immigration enforcement—is precisely what is under attack.
The arrest of Judge Dugan is not simply a legal action; it is a political maneuver aimed at enforcing compliance through fear. It exposes the Trump administration’s willingness to undermine judicial independence and due process in the name of immigration enforcement, using the machinery of federal prosecution not to safeguard the law, but to punish defiance.
The Trump administration has reversed its recent mass termination of student visa registrations for thousands of foreign students in the U.S. whose records flagged minor or dismissed legal infractions. This decision came after mounting legal challenges, with over 100 lawsuits filed and judges in at least 23 states issuing restraining orders against the move, calling it illegal and arbitrary. The terminations had threatened students' immigration status, jeopardized their ability to continue classes or research, and left many facing potential deportation.
Following widespread judicial criticism, the Justice Department announced in court that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) would halt terminations of student visa records in the SEVIS database based solely on criminal background checks identifying misdemeanors or dismissed charges. ICE is now developing a new policy framework for how such terminations will be handled in the future.
However, it remains unclear whether the State Department will similarly reverse its recent cancellations of student visas, which included cases linked to pro-Palestinian activism and others flagged for minor legal issues. The government indicated that it is reviewing these decisions but has not confirmed any reversals. ICE has stated that while SEVIS records will remain active for now, it still retains the authority to terminate visas for other violations of immigration law.
A federal judge temporarily blocked the Trump administration from enforcing a controversial executive order that, according to the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), would strip collective bargaining rights from hundreds of thousands of federal employees. The order, signed by Trump on March 27, sought to apply the national security exemption broadly across numerous federal agencies — a move unprecedented by any previous president. The NTEU, which represents nearly 160,000 federal workers, argued the order was intended to facilitate mass firings and punish unions politically opposed to Trump’s agenda.
Judge Paul Friedman’s preliminary injunction halts enforcement of the order at around three dozen agencies where NTEU represents employees, including the IRS, EPA, HHS, Energy Department, and FCC. The union claimed the order would cause it to lose more than half of its membership and about $25 million in dues revenue, threatening its ability to function effectively. The Trump administration countered that the order was necessary for ensuring national security and that courts should defer to presidential judgment on such matters. However, the union asserted that the affected workers do not perform national security functions. The ruling is not final, and the court requested proposals by May 2 on how the case should proceed.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced Thursday that it is withdrawing a proposed Biden-era rule aimed at limiting salmonella contamination in raw poultry. The rule would have required poultry producers to test for harmful salmonella strains, with contaminated products facing potential recalls. USDA officials cited concerns raised during the public comment period, including questions about the agency’s legal authority and the economic impact of the regulation, as reasons for pulling the proposal.
This move aligns with the Trump administration’s broader deregulatory approach, despite recent salmonella outbreaks across multiple states. The CDC estimates salmonella causes about 1.35 million infections annually in the U.S. Critics, including Consumer Reports’ food policy director Brian Ronholm, condemned the decision, warning that it undermines consumer protections. Ronholm highlighted the rollback of other food safety measures — including staff and budget cuts, delays in traceability rules, and the elimination of advisory committees — as evidence of the administration's weakening commitment to food safety.
The Trump administration has opened an investigation into the University of California, Berkeley, over allegations of failing to properly disclose foreign funding, particularly from China. The probe, led by the Department of Education, follows a series of executive orders recently signed by President Trump targeting what he calls liberal-leaning universities. One such order emphasizes stricter enforcement of Section 117, which requires disclosure of foreign gifts and contracts over $250,000.
While the administration cites a 2023 media report claiming Berkeley failed to report $220 million in Chinese funding tied to its former partnership with Tsinghua University, the investigation disregards Berkeley’s stated cooperation with federal inquiries and its public decision to end the affiliation with the Tsinghua-Berkeley Shenzhen Institute. Instead of a measured regulatory review, the administration is exploiting the optics of foreign influence concerns to fuel nationalist rhetoric and cast suspicion on research collaborations that are, in many cases, global and transparent by design.
The timing of this investigation, coming directly on the heels of executive orders targeting universities, underscores the performative nature of the administration’s focus on foreign funding. This action is less about protecting national interests and more about punishing institutions that resist Trump’s cultural and political agenda. The parallel escalation against Harvard, likewise framed around foreign funding disclosures but entangled with disputes over campus protests and diversity policies, further exposes the partisan motivations at play.
Rather than fostering legitimate national security safeguards, the Trump administration’s approach undermines academic freedom and chills international research cooperation by turning disclosure regulations into blunt instruments of political retribution. It also risks conflating legitimate global partnerships with espionage, reducing complex academic relationships to simplistic narratives of loyalty and threat — a tactic that serves propaganda more than policy.