What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
June 16, 2025 Recap
Donald Trump’s Truth Social post is a reckless, inflammatory piece of political theater that demonstrates a dangerous disregard for diplomatic responsibility and international stability. His opening line—“Iran should have signed the ‘deal’ I told them to sign”—reduces the complex dynamics of nuclear diplomacy to a crude, authoritarian command, as if global security hinges on unilateral ultimatums issued over social media. This framing reveals not only a delusional sense of personal infallibility but a profound misunderstanding of how negotiations work between sovereign nations. The statement “What a shame, and waste of human life” feigns concern while absolving Trump of any culpability for escalating tensions, offering no acknowledgment of how his own policies—such as the withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018—helped destabilize the situation in the first place.
The all-caps proclamation, “IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON,” lacks nuance, strategy, or substance. It’s a performative shout into the void, unmoored from any stated plan or policy. Most egregiously, his call for the immediate evacuation of Tehran is a wildly irresponsible act of fearmongering, hinting at potential military escalation or an intelligence cue without justification or evidence. Such a statement from a sitting U.S. president can trigger panic, provoke adversaries, and complicate diplomatic efforts, essentially sabotaging backchannel talks or multilateral pressure campaigns. This post is not just undisciplined—it’s reckless posturing masquerading as leadership, and it underscores the profound risk of conducting foreign policy by ego and impulse rather than principle and prudence.
At the opening of the G7 summit in Kananaskis, Donald Trump delivered a disjointed, grievance-laden monologue that prioritized defending Russia over projecting U.S. leadership. Rather than engaging in constructive diplomacy with fellow leaders of the world’s most powerful democracies, Trump fixated on the past exclusion of Russia from the G8, placing blame on former President Barack Obama and former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. According to Trump, this move—meant to punish Russia for its 2014 annexation of Crimea—was a strategic blunder that precipitated the war in Ukraine. “You wouldn’t have a war right now if you had Russia in,” he declared, while asserting, dubiously, that he had opposed Russia’s expulsion even though he was not yet in politics.
This revisionist retelling not only glossed over Russia's continued aggression in Eastern Europe but also undercut years of bipartisan American foreign policy. Trump’s attempt to recast Vladimir Putin as a misunderstood figure rather than a global aggressor has not only alarmed U.S. allies but delighted Kremlin propagandists. Russian state media have openly mocked the United States in recent months, celebrating Trump’s deferential posture and amplifying his anti-Ukraine rhetoric as evidence of waning Western resolve.
During his remarks, Trump veered between belligerence and incoherence. While defending Russia’s place in the global order, he also boasted that if he had been president four years ago, the Ukraine war would never have started—an unverifiable and self-congratulatory claim typical of his foreign policy posture. When pressed on the Iran-Israel conflict, Trump pivoted to unrelated talking points or deflected entirely, until Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney—chairing the summit—was forced to reassert order and shut down the president’s rambling remarks.
In contrast to his campaign pledges to end the war in Ukraine within 24 hours of taking office, Trump’s actions in power have been markedly conciliatory toward Moscow. His reluctance to enforce sanctions after a deadly airstrike on Kyiv, and his insistence that punishing Russia would “hurt” prospects for peace, have placed him at odds with both U.S. allies and his own party. Senate Republicans, increasingly frustrated, have begun taking matters into their own hands. Majority Leader John Thune recently confirmed that the Senate would move ahead with a sanctions bill in defiance of Trump’s delay, and even Mitch McConnell publicly confronted Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to demand clarity on which side the administration actually supports.
Rather than offering a vision of unity or strength at the G7, Trump used the summit to elevate Putin’s position, downplay Russia’s transgressions, and inflame partisan grievances. His performance—unmoored from traditional diplomacy and at times visibly unhinged—highlighted the widening chasm between the United States and its allies, as well as the growing discomfort within his own party about where Trump’s foreign policy loyalties truly lie.
Sources: White House and The New Republic
At the G7 summit, Donald Trump and U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced the signing of a bilateral trade deal that reduces U.S. tariffs on British auto and aerospace imports. At first glance, this agreement appears to be a diplomatic success, but a closer look reveals several shortcomings and contradictions that raise questions about both its implementation and strategic coherence.
First, the optics and messaging around the announcement were disjointed. Trump's confusion during the G7 press conference—mistaking the United Kingdom for the European Union—undermined the credibility and seriousness of the signing. Such gaffes weaken confidence in the administration’s command of international affairs and detract from the significance of the deal itself.
Second, while the agreement slashes tariffs on U.K. auto and aerospace imports, the more contentious issue of steel remains unresolved. The U.K. will continue to face a 25% tariff, down from the 50% global rate, but this is still substantially higher than the “zero percent” rate the British government had previously anticipated. The discrepancy between what was promised and what was delivered reveals a pattern of premature declarations from both sides, raising concerns about trust and reliability.
Moreover, the rollout of the deal demonstrates a lack of clarity and policy coordination. The White House had to issue a follow-up statement clarifying that Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick would later determine quota exemptions on steel and aluminum—a signal that major elements of the agreement are still incomplete. Simultaneously, unresolved issues like pharmaceuticals and the U.K.’s ongoing ban on hormone-treated beef expose the limits of the agreement’s scope and leave critical sectors in limbo.
Perhaps most notably, Trump’s casual remark that the U.K. is “protected” from tariffs simply because “I like them” reinforces the perception that U.S. trade policy under his administration is driven less by coherent strategy and more by personal favoritism or political theatrics. This kind of ad hoc justification undermines the rule-based framework that trade agreements are meant to embody.
While the agreement does secure tangible benefits for the U.K.’s auto and aerospace sectors, it falls short of being a comprehensive or stable trade pact. It reflects a piecemeal, personality-driven approach to diplomacy that may generate short-term wins but introduces long-term uncertainty for businesses and trading partners alike.
Donald Trump cut short his attendance at the G7 summit in the Canadian Rockies, citing escalating tensions in the Middle East. According to Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, Trump returned to Washington early to address urgent matters, though he had already signed a major trade deal with the UK. A significant source of division at the summit stemmed from Trump’s refusal to endorse a joint G7 statement that condemned Iran and affirmed Israel’s right to self-defense. Despite European leaders' push for consensus, Trump withheld his signature, asserting he had made his stance on Iran clear and preferred to act independently.
During the summit, Trump escalated rhetoric by urging civilians to evacuate Tehran via Truth Social, a move interpreted as a pressure tactic amid Israel’s military strikes on Iran following a missed nuclear deal deadline Trump had imposed. Trump claimed Iran now wanted to negotiate and hinted that a diplomatic breakthrough might be imminent.
European officials expressed concern over Trump’s unilateral approach and ambiguity on U.S. military involvement, pressing for clarity on how long Washington would tolerate Israeli aggression. Tensions deepened over Trump’s suggestion that Russian President Vladimir Putin could mediate the conflict—an idea rejected by France’s Emmanuel Macron, who cited Russia’s violation of international law in Ukraine. Trump further stirred controversy by defending Russia’s past inclusion in the G8, blaming its expulsion on Barack Obama and Justin Trudeau, whom he criticized by name.
Overall, Trump’s actions at the summit underscored his skepticism of multilateral diplomacy, his volatile messaging on Iran, and a growing rift between the U.S. and European allies over global conflict management.
The Trump Organization’s unveiling of Trump Mobile and its accompanying “T1” smartphone marks the latest example of President Donald Trump’s continued effort to monetize his political identity while serving in the highest office. Set to launch in September, the $47.45-per-month “47 Plan” offers unlimited talk, text, and data, along with perks like roadside assistance and a “Telehealth and Pharmacy Benefit.” The branding leans heavily into Trump’s current role as the 47th president, with both the plan name and price symbolically tied to his political identity. The device itself — a gold-toned phone etched with an American flag — displays Trump’s campaign slogan “Make America Great Again,” underscoring the product’s overtly political marketing.
Despite its fanfare, the offering does little to differentiate itself in a competitive wireless market, aside from its branding. Comparable unlimited plans from budget providers like Visible and Mint Mobile offer similar or better coverage at significantly lower prices — $25 and $30 per month, respectively. While Trump Mobile claims to operate on the networks of the top three carriers and boasts a U.S.-based call center, a representative declined to verify the call center’s location, citing “security reasons,” adding to skepticism about the service’s transparency and reliability.
Ethics concerns persist. Although the Trump Organization disclaims any direct involvement in designing, manufacturing, or distributing the phone or service — characterizing it as a licensing deal — the venture highlights ongoing questions about the intersection of public office and private enrichment. With Trump now back in the White House, his personal brand is once again being leveraged for commercial profit, blurring the boundaries between his duties as president and the business interests of his family and organization. According to recent disclosures, Trump earned over $8 million in 2024 from similar licensing arrangements, indicating that such ventures remain a lucrative pillar of his post-2016 business strategy. Trump Mobile, like Trump’s previous branded products, seems less about delivering value to consumers and more about monetizing loyalty to the man behind the brand.
The American Bar Association (ABA) has filed a federal lawsuit against the Trump administration, alleging that a series of executive orders aimed at punishing certain law firms are unconstitutional. The suit argues that President Trump has used executive power to coerce firms into abandoning clients and causes he disapproves of, particularly by threatening to revoke security clearances, contracts, and federal building access. These actions allegedly target firms involved in pro bono work that conflicts with the administration’s agenda or that support diversity and inclusion initiatives.
The ABA claims this campaign has had a chilling effect, deterring firms from representing controversial clients — especially in immigration cases — and making it difficult for the ABA itself to secure pro bono legal help. The lawsuit also cites prior instances of the administration retaliating against the ABA, including cutting training grants and boycotting its events.
The ABA is seeking a judicial declaration that Trump's orders violate the First Amendment and a permanent injunction against such executive actions. The White House dismissed the lawsuit as “frivolous,” insisting the president has authority over federal contracts and clearances. Several other targeted law firms have also sued and won court injunctions, while some struck deals with the administration. This move has divided the legal community over concerns about integrity and coercion.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) determined for the second time this year that the Trump administration illegally withheld funds that Congress had already approved. Most recently, the GAO found that the administration violated the Impoundment Control Act by freezing money designated for libraries, archives, and museums through the Institute of Museum and Library Services. Senator Patty Murray criticized the move, noting that Trump signed the funding into law and must follow through. This ruling follows a similar GAO finding regarding the unlawful withholding of electric vehicle charging station funds. The GAO is currently investigating at least 39 more instances of potential violations, which could impact ongoing legal challenges against the administration. Meanwhile, Trump and his allies have been openly critical of the GAO’s oversight.
A federal judge, Allison Burroughs, announced she would extend a temporary restraining order blocking President Donald Trump’s proclamation barring foreign nationals from studying at Harvard University, giving herself more time to decide on a longer-term injunction. The order, initially issued on June 5, will now remain in effect until June 23 while the court considers Harvard’s lawsuit against the policy.
Harvard argues that the proclamation, which cites national security concerns, is a retaliatory move by Trump that violates the university’s First Amendment rights, accusing the administration of trying to control its governance and ideology. Nearly 6,800 international students—27% of Harvard’s student body—would be impacted. Harvard’s lawyer, Ian Gershengorn, called the policy “devastating.”
The Justice Department, represented by Tiberius Davis, defended the order by citing Trump’s broad immigration powers under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Davis claimed Harvard was untrustworthy in hosting foreign students due to its foreign funding and response to alleged illegal activity during recent campus unrest. The administration also pointed to concerns over antisemitism on campus related to pro-Palestinian protests.
This case is part of a broader administration crackdown on Harvard, including freezing $2.5 billion in funding, revoking its ability to host international students via DHS certification, and threatening its tax-exempt status. Burroughs has already blocked several of these efforts and indicated a potential broad injunction to preserve the status quo while litigation proceeds.
Seventeen state-level anti-domestic and sexual violence coalitions filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, challenging new federal grant requirements that bar support for “gender ideology,” diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, or prioritizing undocumented immigrants. The groups argue these conditions, introduced through Trump’s executive orders, force them to choose between federal funding and their core values, risking legal exposure if they comply. The lawsuit, filed in Rhode Island federal court, contends the mandates conflict with existing federal laws prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity and requiring support for underserved populations, including immigrants. The Department of Justice, named in the suit, has not commented. This legal action joins over 200 others filed since January challenging Trump’s executive orders, including a similar case involving LGBTQ+ service organizations, where a judge temporarily blocked enforcement of the rules.