What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
January 29, 2025 Recap
The Trump administration rescinded a widespread freeze on most federal grants and loans on Wednesday, just one day after it was issued.
The order, which sparked chaos and confusion across Washington, was temporarily halted by a federal district judge Tuesday evening.
The directive from the Office of Management and Budget came Monday night, directing federal agencies to "temporarily pause all activities related to obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance, and other relevant agency activities that may be implicated by the executive orders, including, but not limited to, financial assistance for foreign aid, nongovernmental organizations, DEI, woke gender ideology, and the green new deal."
The memo said the pause would allow the administration to review which programs were "consistent" with Trump's agenda.
Social Security, Medicare, and direct payments to individuals were not supposed to be affected. Still, because the memo was so vaguely worded, it wasn't clear which aid would be halted.
Throughout the day, the White House attempted to clarify the exceptions. Still, by then, there was widespread confusion and reports of people and organizations unable to access systems to receive their federal aid.
For example, nonprofits working on health care and homelessness could not access their websites to withdraw funds, and online portals to access Medicaid payments were temporarily down.
Democracy Forward, a progressive nonprofit group, filed the lawsuit against OMB, which resulted in Judge Loren Ali Khan issuing the order temporarily blocking the freeze from going into effect.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced that the Trump administration has revoked a Biden-era extension of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for roughly 600,000 Venezuelans, effectively restoring the original expiration date to April 2025 instead of October 2026. Noem criticized the Biden administration's move, claiming it allowed individuals to stay in the U.S. despite violating immigration laws, but the decision raises significant humanitarian and logistical concerns.
While the decision affects Venezuelans, Noem did not address whether similar protections for Salvadorans, Ukrainians, and Sudanese would also be revoked. TPS provides temporary legal status but does not lead to citizenship. Noem’s argument that the extension allowed people to “violate our laws” is misleading. TPS is a legal status granted by the government, and beneficiaries are authorized to work and reside in the U.S. for a defined period. Stripping this protection has the potential to make lawful residents vulnerable to deportation.
The decision may lead to Venezuelans being subject to removal, though deportations could be difficult due to the lack of diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Venezuela. Noem asserted that Trump would use his authority to pressure countries like Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua to accept deportees. However, it is not grounded in any specific policy mechanism, and past attempts to pressure authoritarian regimes into compliance have been largely ineffective.
TPS, created in 1990, protects immigrants from countries facing crises like natural disasters or conflict. Around 1 million people from 17 nations currently benefit from the program. Trump previously sought to curtail TPS, and its future remains uncertain under his administration. The decision to terminate the extension prematurely is not a restoration of the rule of law, as Noem suggests, but a deliberate shift toward a harsher immigration stance with little regard for the real-world consequences on affected families and communities.
President Trump signed the Laken Riley Act into law, making it the first bill of his new term as the 47th President of the United States. But the event was as much about political posturing as it was about policy. The legislation aims to enforce stricter immigration laws and prevent violent crimes committed by illegal immigrants. During his remarks, Trump emphasized his administration’s achievements, claiming he won all seven swing states by large margins and secured the popular vote, turning what should have been a solemn policy discussion into a campaign rally-style performance.
The Laken Riley Act was named in honor of Laken Riley, a 22-year-old nursing student who was murdered while jogging in Georgia. Trump described the details of the crime, blaming the previous administration’s immigration policies for allowing the illegal immigrant gang member responsible for the attack to remain in the U.S. The act mandates that all illegal immigrants arrested for crimes such as theft, burglary, assault, and murder be detained, preventing their release into American communities. Additionally, for the first time, it grants state governments the ability to sue the federal government if it fails to enforce immigration laws. Trump framed this law as a necessary measure to protect American citizens and prevent similar tragedies in the future. Many of the provisions—such as detaining illegal immigrants charged with serious crimes—already exist within current federal immigration enforcement policies. The bill’s new lawsuit provision, which allows states to take legal action against the federal government for not enforcing immigration laws, could lead to legal gridlock and constitutional challenges.
In addition to signing the act, Trump outlined his administration's ongoing immigration crackdown. While he pointed to record-low illegal immigration under his leadership, he failed to provide substantive evidence or context for those figures. The claim that border crossings have dropped by 100% is both vague and misleading, as it ignores the complex factors influencing migration trends. His proposed solution—threatening tariffs or using Guantanamo Bay as a detention center for migrants—is an extreme measure that raises legal and humanitarian concerns. He reiterated his commitment to forcing countries like Venezuela and Colombia to take back their criminals, promising strong economic repercussions if they refused.
While Trump did acknowledge the bipartisan nature of the bill, noting that 12 Senate Democrats and 48 House Democrats voted in favor, his overall tone was divisive rather than unifying. Instead of focusing on the achievement of passing meaningful legislation, he used the event to attack political opponents and federal employees.
The event concluded with an emotional speech from Laken Riley’s mother, Allison Riley, who thanked Trump, Congress, and God for honoring her daughter's memory.
In his closing remarks, Trump reiterated that this law represents a significant step toward restoring law and order. His speech blurred the lines between policy and propaganda, relying on questionable statistics, inflammatory rhetoric, and campaign-style bravado.
President Trump has issued a memorandum directing the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security to expand the Migrant Operations Center at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay to full capacity. This expansion aims to provide additional detention space for high-priority criminal aliens unlawfully present in the United States and to support immigration enforcement efforts as identified by the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security.
The directive's broad language does not clarify key issues, such as the criteria for high-priority designation, oversight mechanisms, and the long-term implications of detaining individuals at an offshore military facility.
The memorandum also does not specify whether detainees can access legal representation, hearings, or appeal pathways. Instead, it focuses on enforcement without acknowledging the potential humanitarian consequences of such an expansion. Additionally, it clarifies that the directive does not create any legal rights or benefits that could be enforced against the U.S. government, its agencies, or officials.
President Trump’s executive order, Expanding Educational Freedom and Opportunity for Families, aims to increase school choice for parents and students, particularly in response to the underperformance of government-run K-12 schools. The order highlights proficiency rates in reading and math and the financial strain caused by district-based school assignments, which can limit families’ access to high-quality education. By promoting educational competition and empowering parental choice, the administration seeks to improve student outcomes and drive reform in public education. While it aims to address underperformance in public schools and provide alternatives through private, charter, and faith-based institutions, the order raises several concerns regarding its implementation, funding, and impact on public education.
To implement this vision, the order directs several key actions. The Secretary of Education must issue guidance within 60 days on how states can use federal funds to support school choice initiatives. Additionally, education freedom will be prioritized in federal discretionary grant programs, with the Departments of Education and Labor required to submit plans within 90 days on how their funding can expand educational opportunities. The order also focuses on providing options for low-income families by directing the Department of Health and Human Services to determine how block grants, such as the Child Care and Development Block Grant, can support private or faith-based schooling alternatives. Instead of addressing the root causes of underperformance—such as inadequate funding, overcrowded classrooms, and systemic inequities—the order places the burden on families to seek alternative education rather than improving the public system itself. Moreover, prioritizing "education freedom" in discretionary grant programs risks diverting resources from crucial public education initiatives that benefit all students, not just those with access to alternative schooling options.
Additionally, the order heavily favors privatization and market-driven competition in education, assuming that the presence of private and charter options will naturally lead to improved performance. However, research on school choice has shown mixed results, with some studies indicating that voucher programs and charter schools do not consistently outperform public schools.
Further efforts are directed toward specific groups. The Department of Defense must review and propose plans for military-connected families to use defense-related funds for private, charter, or faith-based schooling. The focus on military families, low-income households, and Native American students suggests an effort to extend educational opportunities. Yet, these new options do not guarantee quality or accessibility. The order also does not address potential issues such as discrimination in private schools or the risk of public funds being used for religious instruction, raising constitutional questions.
President Trump's Executive Order on Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling takes a highly politicized approach to education, aiming to control curricula by restricting discussions on race, gender, and systemic inequality. It claims schools are indoctrinating students with anti-American ideologies yet offers little evidence beyond broad assertions.
The order’s redefinition of discrimination conflates discussions on inequality with racial bias, limiting students' ability to engage with history critically. It emphasizes parental rights, framing schools as undermining parental authority, particularly regarding gender identity, potentially harming vulnerable students. The revival of the 1776 Commission promotes a mythologized, patriotic view of American history while discouraging critical engagement with complex historical realities.
By restricting federal funding for programs that address race and gender, the order risks government-imposed censorship, chilling classroom discussions. Its directive to pursue legal action against educators signals an alarming push toward punitive enforcement.
President Trump issued an executive order establishing a grand celebration for America’s 250th Independence anniversary on July 4, 2026. The order creates the White House Task Force on Celebrating America’s 250th Birthday (Task Force 250), chaired by the President and Vice-Chaired by the Vice President, with various cabinet secretaries and officials included. The Task Force is responsible for coordinating agencies’ efforts in planning the celebration and will operate under the Department of Defense until December 31, 2026. Additionally, the order reinstates previous executive orders related to the National Garden of American Heroes and calls for adding more historically significant figures to the project. It also reinstates an earlier order aimed at protecting American monuments from vandalism, citing recent incidents of defacement and assaults on federal officers. The order ensures that all activities comply with legal and budgetary constraints while emphasizing the importance of honoring American history.
President Trump issued an executive order reaffirming and expanding measures to combat anti-Semitism, particularly in response to increased incidents following the Hamas attacks on October 7, 2023. The order reinforces Executive Order 13899, which sought to protect Jewish students from harassment on campuses. While the order asserts a strong stance against anti-Semitism and calls for immediate governmental action, it raises concerns about selective enforcement, potential overreach, and political motivations.
It mandates federal agencies to report within 60 days on all available civil and criminal actions that can be used to combat anti-Semitism, including an analysis of pending complaints and court cases involving institutions of higher education. A key issue with the order is its broad mandate directing agencies to identify and utilize all available legal tools, including civil and criminal statutes, without clear guidelines on distinguishing legitimate criticism of Israel from unlawful anti-Semitic harassment. Furthermore, the directive for the Attorney General to consider criminal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. 241—a statute primarily aimed at civil rights violations—raises concerns about its application in a university setting, where ideological expression should be protected under the First Amendment.
The Secretary of State, Secretary of Education, and Secretary of Homeland Security are also tasked with providing recommendations for monitoring foreign students and staff for potential violations of immigration laws related to anti-Semitic activities. While ensuring campus safety is crucial, this could lead to profiling or undue surveillance, particularly affecting students from Middle Eastern and Muslim backgrounds. The order’s emphasis on immigration-related enforcement mechanisms suggests a broader policy goal that extends beyond addressing anti-Semitism into the realm of national security and immigration control, potentially leading to discriminatory outcomes.
Orange is pure evil
Looks like Big Government to me. Heaven help us. Can't wait until private equity starts running schools - market driven competition? Racial indoctrination?