What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
Weekend Recap: March 15-16, 2025
President Trump’s proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act to target members of Tren de Aragua (TdA) represents an alarming and politically opportunistic overreach of executive authority. Framed as a national security measure, the document stretches the definition of “invasion” to justify mass detentions and deportations of Venezuelan nationals—many of whom may have tenuous or unproven links to the criminal organization in question. By declaring that any Venezuelan citizen over the age of 14 affiliated with TdA is liable for apprehension and removal, the administration blurs the line between individual culpability and collective punishment. The absence of clear evidentiary standards or due process protections exposes the proclamation as not only legally questionable but dangerously authoritarian in scope.
The language used throughout the proclamation is overtly incendiary, clearly crafted to incite fear rather than inform. Phrases like “predatory incursion,” “irregular warfare,” and “irrefutable evidence” function more as political theater than legal justification, reinforcing a campaign-era narrative that conflates immigration with terrorism. This rhetorical escalation reflects a familiar Trump strategy: manufacture a crisis, cast it in existential terms, and then present sweeping executive action as the only solution. The administration's sudden elevation of TdA to the status of a foreign terrorist organization appears less about national security and more about paving the way for this proclamation—a backdoor method to bypass traditional legal channels for immigration enforcement.
Critically, the invocation of the Alien Enemies Act—a statute originally passed in 1798 and last used during World War II—raises profound constitutional concerns. This law was designed for declared wartime scenarios against sovereign nations, not for targeting alleged gang members amid complex migration flows. Applying it to a non-state criminal network without a formal state of war with Venezuela sets a dangerous precedent for executive overreach. It effectively grants the president unchecked authority to detain and expel individuals based on opaque affiliations and politicized intelligence, bypassing the judiciary and undermining the rule of law.
Moreover, the proclamation’s blanket targeting of Venezuelan nationals reinforces xenophobic and racially charged narratives that have defined Trump’s immigration policy since 2016. It risks legitimizing indiscriminate profiling and expanding the surveillance and detention state under the guise of public safety. There is little indication that safeguards are in place to prevent the wrongful apprehension of asylum seekers, refugees, or individuals caught in bureaucratic ambiguity. The directive to seize property “traceable” to these so-called alien enemies without standard legal proceedings echoes civil asset forfeiture abuses and opens the door to further exploitation.
In short, this proclamation is less a serious national security measure and more a political stunt masquerading as law. It weaponizes obscure legal tools to implement extreme immigration enforcement, sidesteps constitutional protections, and appeals to fear and nationalism at the expense of democratic norms. Rather than addressing transnational crime with international coordination, evidence-based policy, and judicial oversight, the Trump administration has opted for a blunt, legally dubious instrument that prioritizes optics over outcomes and ideology over justice.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent appeared on NBC’s Meet the Press and delivered a performance heavy on deflection and ideology but light on specifics and reassurance. Faced with questions about declining consumer sentiment, market volatility, and recession fears, Bessent consistently pointed fingers at the previous administration, blaming the Biden-era policies for the current affordability crisis. While this may appeal to partisan supporters, it does little to address the real-time anxieties felt by Americans just two months into President Trump’s new term. Bessent’s repeated references to the administration's youth and promises of better days ahead lacked the concrete policy details that might instill public confidence.
When pressed on the worst week for the stock market in two years, Bessent brushed off the concerns as a "healthy correction," referencing Warren Buffett to suggest that long-term investment returns would even out. While this might be true in theory, his dismissive tone overlooked the fact that nearly 60% of Americans are directly affected by market shifts through their retirement savings. Similarly, his defense of the administration's tariff strategy was muddled and contradictory. On the one hand, he framed the tariffs as a short-term negotiating tool; on the other, he hinted at them becoming permanent fixtures in the name of fair trade. His claim that Chinese manufacturers would absorb the cost of tariffs contradicts economic consensus, and he failed to address the likelihood of rising consumer prices in the short term.
Perhaps most revealing was Bessent’s attempt to redefine the American Dream, insisting that access to cheap goods like flat screens isn't what truly matters. While philosophically debatable, this perspective risks alienating working- and middle-class Americans who feel the squeeze of rising costs and view affordability as central to their quality of life. His inability to provide clear answers on whether the country is headed for a recession added to the ambiguity. Bessent avoided making any guarantees and instead labeled the situation a “transition” or “adjustment,” offering vague optimism without solid grounding. This mixed messaging, paired with similar contradictions from other administration officials, only fuels uncertainty.
Bessent was evasive about government spending cuts, particularly to the IRS. He criticized the media for reporting inflated figures yet failed to provide transparent numbers. He mentioned internal reviews and emphasized priorities like collections and customer service but gave no clear picture of how those goals would be met amid workforce reductions. Finally, when discussing the administration’s recent military strikes against Iranian-backed Houthi forces in Yemen, Bessent tried to frame the move in economic terms—tying it to global shipping concerns and inflation pressures. While this angle may have some merit, it risked oversimplifying complex geopolitical issues by filtering them exclusively through an economic lens.
Overall, Bessent’s interview revealed a Treasury Secretary more focused on defending administration policy and maintaining party messaging than offering clear-eyed analysis or concrete solutions. His confident delivery masked a lack of clarity, and his ideological framing often came at the expense of addressing the immediate financial concerns of everyday Americans. The interview raised more questions than it answered, leaving the impression of a leadership team still more reactive than prepared.
In his appearance on Face the Nation, Steve Witkoff, President Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East, projected a tone of guarded optimism while offering few substantive details about ongoing diplomatic efforts in Ukraine and Gaza. Throughout the interview, Witkoff leaned heavily on vague phrases like “positive momentum” and “progress” to describe his recent meeting with Vladimir Putin, emphasizing the length of the meeting—over three hours—as evidence of productivity. However, he failed to articulate any concrete breakthroughs or shifts in Russia’s stance. His response to skepticism, particularly from French President Emmanuel Macron, who questioned Russia’s sincerity, was to dismiss such concerns on the grounds that Macron may lack firsthand experience. This rhetorical move sidestepped the very real issue of continued Russian aggression and the widely reported intensification of fighting.
When asked about the potential Trump-Putin call to discuss a 30-day ceasefire, Witkoff pivoted to highlighting the personal “real relationship” between the two leaders. This is a recurring theme in Trump-era diplomacy, which places disproportionate emphasis on personal rapport rather than institutional processes or strategic frameworks. His insistence that the existence of dialogue is a win overshadowed the fact that Russia had not yet agreed to the ceasefire.
Witkoff’s commentary on Gaza followed a similar pattern: broad statements devoid of policy specifics. He mentioned “exploring all alternatives” for relocating two million Palestinians, including vague references to Egypt and Jordan, without addressing the legal, ethical, or geopolitical ramifications. His critique of Hamas’ response to a proposed peace framework was firm but lacked a roadmap for the next steps, leaving the impression of diplomatic inertia masked by rhetorical resolve.
Witkoff’s interview was emblematic of performative diplomacy, reliant on tone and talking points rather than transparency or actionable detail. While he conveyed a sense of engagement and ongoing dialogue, his unwillingness to offer clarity or confront difficult realities undermined the credibility of U.S. efforts in Ukraine and Gaza. The result was an appearance that reassured supporters but did little to convince skeptics or international observers looking for real signs of progress.
The Trump administration deported hundreds of immigrants to El Salvador and Honduras, even as a federal judge issued a temporary order halting such deportations. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issued the emergency ruling after learning that two deportation flights were already in the air. Though he verbally directed that the planes be turned around, that instruction was not included in his written order, and the deportations continued. The administration justified its actions under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798—a law historically invoked only during declared wars such as the War of 1812 and the World Wars. Trump declared that members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua posed a national security threat and ordered mass removals under this law. However, critics argue that the administration failed to provide any public evidence linking deportees to the gang and warned the law could now be used to target any Venezuelan citizen without due process.
Legal scholars and immigration advocates have raised alarm over the legality and constitutionality of the move. They note that the Alien Enemies Act has never been used in peacetime or without a congressional declaration of war. Deporting individuals without proving gang affiliation or criminal behavior and with no opportunity for legal defense amounts to a violation of basic constitutional rights. Judge Boasberg expanded his ruling to block deportations for anyone in federal custody potentially affected by the act, citing the danger of permanent harm once individuals are removed from U.S. soil. The judge emphasized that those affected deserve a chance to be heard in court. A hearing is scheduled for Friday to examine further whether Trump overstepped his authority.
The deportation effort has been met with celebration from Trump allies. Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele, who agreed to house about 300 deportees in his country’s prisons for $6 million, mocked the court’s intervention on social media. U.S. officials also sent two top members of the Salvadoran MS-13 gang back to El Salvador. Video released by Bukele’s government showed shackled men being forced off planes, shaved, and placed into the country’s notorious CECOT prison, known for its harsh conditions and controversial human rights record. The imagery, which some have likened to authoritarian tactics, further inflamed concerns about the morality and legality of the administration’s actions.
Critics warn that the entire episode reflects a troubling politicization of immigration enforcement, using fear of gangs to justify sweeping actions without evidence or accountability. Trump’s team appears to have moved quickly to deport as many Venezuelans as possible before legal challenges could take effect. The strategy, some argue, aims to create a spectacle of toughness while sidestepping judicial scrutiny. The situation raises both constitutional and humanitarian questions, as it potentially violates international norms regarding the treatment of detainees and the right to asylum. For now, the 14-day stay remains in place, but the broader legal and ethical battles are just beginning.
President Trump has moved to dismantle the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), which oversees Voice of America (VOA) and other U.S.-funded international media outlets, through a sweeping executive order signed late Friday. The order calls for USAGM to be “eliminated to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law,” prompting immediate and widespread disruption. On Saturday, over 1,300 VOA journalists, producers, and support staff—including VOA Director Mike Abramowitz—were abruptly placed on administrative leave. The move left studios scrambling for content and created chaos among staff, with many learning of their suspension en route to work.
Trump has long held a grudge against VOA, attacking it during his first term and reportedly wanting MAGA loyalist Kari Lake to lead the outlet. Lake, now a special adviser to USAGM, played a key role in the implementation of the staffing and funding cuts and even took to social media to urge affected employees to check their emails. In addition to VOA, other USAGM-backed platforms such as Radio Free Asia (RFA) and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) were also hit, with immediate grant terminations threatening their operations. RFA is expected to begin furloughing staff soon despite its key role in countering Chinese propaganda.
The sweeping cuts have sparked a fierce backlash from press freedom advocates and media professionals. Former VOA acting director Elez Biberaj called the decision “profoundly harmful” to U.S. interests, while RFE/RL CEO Stephen Capus warned it would be a “massive gift” to authoritarian regimes. High-profile journalists, including NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell, and organizations like the National Press Club have condemned the shutdown, citing its chilling impact on free and independent journalism. The VOA’s 1976 charter, signed into law by President Gerald Ford, guarantees its editorial independence and promotes accurate, objective news to global audiences—especially in regions lacking press freedom.
Critics argue that this effort is politically motivated and aims to weaken institutions that do not serve Trump’s personal narrative. Trump allies' celebration of the move, including posts mocking VOA’s coverage of systemic racism and social justice, underscores a broader campaign against independent media. The decision not only strips the U.S. of a key soft-power tool but also undermines its moral standing on press freedom and democratic values at a time when disinformation from adversaries is on the rise.
thank you for this disheartening review, it's horrifying and seeing the hard work of so many over so many years being decimated is devastating