What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
March 26, 2025 Recap
In a follow-up article to Monday’s exposé by The Atlantic, journalists Jeffrey Goldberg and Shane Harris revealed a significant security breach within the Trump administration, in which senior officials used an unsecured Signal group chat to discuss imminent military operations in Yemen. The group, called “Houthi PC small group,” included Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and National Security Adviser Michael Waltz. In a critical error, Waltz inadvertently added Goldberg—The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief—to the chat, giving a journalist real-time access to operational details of an upcoming airstrike.
The administration has since denied any wrongdoing. Hegseth dismissed the incident by stating that “nobody was texting war plans,” while Gabbard and Ratcliffe insisted in Senate hearings that no classified information was shared. President Trump echoed this claim, calling the shared content non-classified. However, the actual messages reviewed by The Atlantic tell a different story. The chat contained precise launch times for F-18 fighter jets and drones, intelligence about the presence and identity of Houthi targets, and real-time updates on strike outcomes. Hegseth’s message at 11:44 a.m. on March 15 explicitly stated that the mission was a go, giving a minute-by-minute timeline of the operation, including when bombs would drop and when follow-up strikes would occur. This message came over 30 minutes before the first aircraft launched and more than two hours before a primary target was expected to be killed—meaning that, had this information fallen into the wrong hands, American lives could have been at risk.
The administration’s response was mixed. While officials continued to insist that the information was not classified, the White House, CIA, and others urged The Atlantic not to publish the chat's full contents, citing the discussion's sensitivity. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt acknowledged that sensitive information was shared, despite denying it was classified. The CIA requested the redaction of one name—a senior staff member who is not undercover—while allowing the rest of the messages to be made public.
Given the repeated denials by administration officials and the public interest in understanding how sensitive military decisions are being communicated, The Atlantic chose to publish the messages, withholding only the name requested by the CIA. The texts also revealed internal praise and emotional reactions among Trump officials, including messages like “Godspeed to our Warriors,” “Excellent,” and even a string of emojis from the CIA director. The exchange raises concerns about operational security and protocol and underscores a lack of discipline in handling sensitive national security matters. Despite ongoing claims that no laws were broken, the episode illustrates the potential consequences of casual and unsecured communication at the highest levels of government.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt held a press briefing characterized by aggressive rhetoric, partisan attacks, and a persistent refusal to engage transparently with the press. While she opened with announcements touting foreign investments and manufacturing growth—framed as evidence of President Trump’s economic leadership—Leavitt offered little substantive detail to support claims like this being “the most successful first two months of any administration ever.” Instead, the briefing quickly pivoted into full-throated defenses of the administration’s military strikes against Houthi forces in Yemen and a combative rebuttal to the growing controversy over the use of the Signal messaging app by senior officials.
Leavitt repeatedly insisted that no classified information was shared in the leaked Signal thread, even when reporters cited Department of Defense standards suggesting otherwise. Her responses leaned on vague assurances from senior officials rather than offering any concrete justification, and she evaded direct answers by citing prior statements or claiming the matter had already been addressed. Notably, when asked about the apparent release of operational details such as launch times and weapons platforms—information that would typically be considered sensitive—she refused to engage meaningfully, instead deferring to the Secretary of Defense’s public statement and redirecting the conversation toward attacks on the media, particularly Atlantic journalist Jeffrey Goldberg.
Throughout the briefing, Leavitt displayed a combative tone toward the press corps, frequently interrupting questions, dismissing follow-ups, and framing critical inquiries as part of a larger, coordinated smear campaign. She leaned heavily into familiar Trump-era tactics: attacking the credibility of reporters, invoking past Democratic controversies (such as the Afghanistan withdrawal), and presenting any criticism as an attack on the administration’s patriotism and competence. Her repeated references to “Democrat propagandists” and claims that the media is trying to “sow chaos” exemplify this partisan framing. Even when questioned about potential risks to U.S. troops or whether any officials would be held accountable for the Signal incident, Leavitt defaulted to political rhetoric over substantive answers.
What’s most troubling is the press secretary’s unwillingness to acknowledge even the possibility of a national security misstep. No officials are under review, no investigation findings have been released, and no accountability has been offered—only deflection, invocations of strength, and attacks on perceived enemies. While this may play well to a partisan audience and bolster the administration’s preferred narrative of competence under siege, it further erodes the briefing’s role as a venue for honest, accountable governance. Rather than fostering transparency, Leavitt has turned the White House podium into a campaign stage. This approach may energize the president’s base but risks alienating moderates and undermining public trust in the administration’s handling of national security.
Donald Trump’s remarks at the Women’s History Month event, held at The White House, were sprawling, disorganized, and ultimately failed to meaningfully honor the contributions of women. What should have been a unifying and celebratory occasion was instead used as a platform for partisan rhetoric, self-promotion, and culture war grievances. While he did name several women in his administration and offer scattered praise, the compliments were often superficial, focusing on their appearance, loyalty to him, or anecdotal personal stories. His repeated references to people being "good-looking" and jokes like dubbing himself "the Fertilization President" trivialized the event’s purpose and veered into awkward territory.
The speech lacked thematic coherence, jumping erratically from topic to topic—honoring historical women, attacking Democrats, bashing transgender athletes, touting tariffs, and inflating economic claims. His discussion of trans issues was particularly divisive, relying on inflammatory rhetoric such as “sexual mutilation of minor youth” and arguing that “you can never become a woman.” Rather than celebrating all women, the speech weaponized women’s issues to attack political opponents and stoke culture war divisions. The repeated suggestion that the previous administration tried to “abolish the very concept of womanhood” reflects a calculated political strategy, not a sincere defense of women's rights.
Much of the event was spent listing names of political allies, praising them more for their loyalty or visibility in conservative media than for their policy work. Even policy-related claims, such as asserting that one appointee lowered the price of eggs by 50% in three weeks, were exaggerated and disconnected from economic realities. The emphasis on personal credit and perceived media neglect—“no one talks about how I fixed the egg problem”—reveals an ongoing obsession with self-image rather than substance.
The speech missed the opportunity to meaningfully engage with the purpose of Women’s History Month. Instead of highlighting grassroots leaders, innovators, or women whose work often goes unrecognized, Trump used the event as a personal showcase and political rally. The speech was not a celebration of women’s progress but a stage for grievance politics and applause lines.
Donald Trump’s remarks from the Oval Office on auto tariffs were intended to mark a significant economic policy shift, but the delivery was disorganized, laden with hyperbole, and often veered into unrelated tangents. The centerpiece of the announcement—a 25% tariff on foreign-made automobiles—was framed as a tool for reviving American manufacturing, bringing back jobs, and restoring economic “liberation.” However, the rationale was built on shaky economic assumptions. Trump claimed the tariffs could generate between $600 billion and $1 trillion in revenue over two years, figures that far exceed historical tariff revenue and appear detached from any economic modeling. Moreover, the policy ignores the complex, global nature of modern auto supply chains and risks retaliation from trade partners. While Trump touted the move as a win for U.S. factories, consumers are likely to bear the cost in the form of higher car prices.
Throughout the speech, Trump frequently shifted topics, undermining the coherence of his message. He jumped from AI innovation and chip manufacturing to wind energy, whale deaths, wildfire policy, TikTok negotiations, and even state-level education reform. The result was a rambling address that lacked structure, with little effort to connect these issues in a meaningful or logical way. Anecdotal stories—such as securing factory permits in one day or making “beautiful clean coal”—were presented as proof of policy success without supporting evidence. His rhetoric leaned heavily on vague superlatives (“roaring,” “booming,” “massive”) rather than specific accomplishments or data.
Additionally, Trump’s antagonistic tone toward U.S. allies—claiming “friends have often been worse than foes”—and his repeated attacks on the media contributed to an overall message that felt more like a campaign stump speech than a serious economic policy rollout. Even when reporters asked about potential drawbacks, such as increased consumer prices or stock market reactions, Trump deflected with broad assurances and continued to promote the move as a patriotic economic revival. The policy itself warrants scrutiny, but the larger issue was the way in which it was communicated: scattered, theatrical, and lacking the clarity or discipline expected of a major policy initiative.
Donald Trump gave a phone interview with Vince Coglianese on Rumble, which was less a policy discussion and more a promotional performance piece filled with familiar themes of grievance, dominance, and unverified triumph. From the outset, the tone is cozy and uncritical. Coglianese, far from playing the role of a journalist, acts as a cheerleader, offering Trump softball questions and ample room to boast or vent without interruption. The conversation is dominated by vague superlatives—“very good,” “tremendous,” “never seen before”—used in place of specific accomplishments. Trump’s speaking style is meandering and frequently incoherent, especially when discussing matters like the mission to Greenland. He insists, with no policy framework, that the U.S. "has to have" Greenland for strategic reasons, a claim that feels more like imperialistic fantasy than rational defense policy.
Much of the conversation is shaped around conspiracy theories and revisionist claims. Trump repeats, without evidence, that the 2020 election was rigged, that he won it “by a lot,” and that Democrats cheat while Republicans do not. His executive order threatening to withhold federal funding from states unless they comply with federal election requirements is legally dubious and delivered with a tone of authoritarian confidence. He also returns to the debunked "Russia hoax" narrative, claiming to declassify documents from the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, though nothing concrete is offered. The repeated emphasis on victimhood—at the hands of big tech, media, and political opponents—is paired with a savior narrative in which Trump alone can restore integrity and control.
One of the most disturbing aspects of the interview is the use of personal attacks and derogatory language. Trump unleashes a barrage of insults toward Rep. Jasmine Crockett, calling her a “lowlife,” “low IQ,” and incapable of speech. These attacks are rooted in sexism and ableism and reflect a continuing disregard for decency in political discourse. Similarly, he refers to journalist Jeffrey Goldberg as a “sleazebag” and implies that The Atlantic is failing as a publication, despite offering no meaningful rebuttal to the article in question. These rhetorical assaults serve no public purpose beyond satisfying a base that responds to insults as strength.
Despite its length, the interview reveals little about Trump’s actual governance in his second term. Claims of economic recovery—falling gas and food prices, increased manufacturing—are presented without data or attribution, suggesting a post-fact presidency reliant on mood rather than metrics. His commentary on foreign policy, including strikes on the Houthis and the situation in Ukraine, is shallow and devoid of strategy, resting on vague declarations of “tremendous progress.” Even when addressing serious matters like swatting incidents and domestic terrorism, Trump offers little more than empty threats of long prison sentences and generalized reassurances.
This interview illustrates Trump’s continued reliance on personality-driven politics and culture war rhetoric. The absence of policy clarity, the proliferation of conspiratorial thinking, and the embrace of personal insult over serious debate highlight a presidency still rooted in spectacle over substance.
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who is already presiding over a deportation case involving Venezuelan nationals and the Trump administration, has been assigned a new lawsuit concerning the use of encrypted Signal messages by top Trump officials. The lawsuit, filed by the watchdog group American Oversight in Washington, D.C., alleges that senior administration officials violated the Federal Records Act (FRA) by allowing Signal messages to auto-delete, thus unlawfully destroying federal records. The FRA, amended in 2021, mandates that electronic communications from agency heads be preserved, as they are considered official government records. The defendants in the case include Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. American Oversight argues these officials should have known that such messages must be retained and is asking the court for emergency and permanent injunctions to prevent further loss of records.
The lawsuit stems from a controversy triggered by The Atlantic's Editor-in-Chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, who was mistakenly added to the Signal group and subsequently published screenshots showing that some messages were set to disappear after one to four weeks. The group chat included Vice President J.D. Vance, Rubio, Hegseth, Gabbard, and National Security Adviser Mike Waltz. This latest legal challenge adds to Boasberg’s growing list of cases involving the Trump administration. He has already faced sharp criticism from Trump allies, particularly after he ordered the grounding of deportation flights carrying members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. The administration claimed the planes had already left U.S. territory when the order was issued, but the ACLU argued the administration intentionally defied the ruling. Boasberg's repeated legal interventions have made him a target of pro-Trump officials, with some calling for his impeachment.
Boasberg, an Obama appointee, is now overseeing four separate lawsuits against the second Trump administration. These include Erie County, New York’s challenge to a federal grant freeze for the Retired and Senior Volunteer Program and a suit from the Project on Government Oversight aimed at bringing the Department of Government Efficiency under the Freedom of Information Act. All cases have been assigned to Boasberg randomly.
A federal appeals court has refused to lift a block on the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport Venezuelan migrants. The D.C. Circuit Court upheld a March 15 ruling that halted these deportations, which were based on a presidential proclamation labeling the Tren de Aragua gang an invading force.
This marked the first use of the law since WWII. Although hundreds had already been deported, a district judge ordered the return of some migrants—an order that has not been carried out.
The case, filed by the ACLU on behalf of five Venezuelan detainees, underscores the growing tension between the White House and the judiciary over immigration powers.
The Trump administration plans to end U.S. funding for Gavi, a global vaccine alliance that helps provide vaccines to children in low-income countries. It will significantly scale back efforts to combat malaria. These changes are part of a broader overhaul of foreign aid programs detailed in a 281-page document prepared by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). While some humanitarian assistance will continue—such as grants for HIV and tuberculosis treatment and food aid in conflict or disaster-stricken areas—the administration aims to reduce foreign aid spending drastically in line with its “America First” policy. Since Trump took office, approximately 80% of foreign aid contracts have been abruptly cut, contributing to widespread confusion and suffering in vulnerable regions.
According to the document, 5,341 aid programs are slated for termination, representing nearly $76 billion in funding, of which about $48 billion has already been legally obligated. In contrast, 898 programs will remain active, totaling $78 billion, much of which has already been disbursed. Gavi responded to the proposed cuts by emphasizing the importance of U.S. support, noting that continued funding could help save over eight million lives in the next five years. Since its launch in 2000, Gavi estimates it has helped save 18.8 million children's lives by facilitating access to routine vaccines against deadly diseases like measles and diphtheria. United Nations spokesperson Stephane Dujarric praised Gavi as a powerful example of multilateral and public-private cooperation in global health, encouraging continued international support for the organization.
Source: Reuters
The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to allow it to proceed with cutting more than $600 million in teacher training grants, a move currently blocked by lower courts. The affected programs—Teacher Quality Partnership and Supporting Effective Educator Development—support teacher preparation in critical areas like math, science, and special education and have been shown to improve teacher retention rates. A federal judge in Boston issued a temporary restraining order against the cuts, finding that they were already harming efforts to address a nationwide teacher shortage and likely violated federal law by being enacted without proper explanation or notice. An appellate court upheld that ruling, and now the administration is seeking an emergency order from the Supreme Court to let the cuts move forward while the case continues.
Eight Democratic-led states, including California, Massachusetts, and New York, filed the lawsuit, arguing that the funding cuts are ideologically driven and part of President Trump’s broader attempt to dismantle the Department of Education and eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. Trump's executive order to overhaul the department has already resulted in the termination of numerous contracts labeled by his administration as “woke” or wasteful. The Justice Department contends that the lower court rulings are forcing the administration to continue funding programs it no longer supports, warning that this amounts to inappropriate fiscal micromanagement by the judiciary. Acting Solicitor General Sarah M. Harris emphasized that district courts will continue to obstruct Trump’s broader policy changes unless the Supreme Court intervenes.
This appeal is part of a wider legal clash between the administration and the courts. The Justice Department has filed several emergency appeals to counter rulings that have stalled Trump’s agenda, including attempts to limit birthright citizenship and reverse mass federal worker terminations. While the Supreme Court has yet to weigh in on these particular cases, it previously denied efforts to freeze nearly $2 billion in foreign aid. It temporarily blocked Trump’s attempt to fire the head of a federal watchdog agency. In this latest education-related case, the administration maintains that states can use their own funds in the interim, but the states argue that the cuts were abrupt, unlawful, and damaging to long-term teacher development. The Supreme Court has called for a response to the administration’s request by Friday.
The Justice Department under Donald Trump is now supporting his attempt to move his New York hush money criminal case to federal court, arguing he should be allowed to challenge his guilty verdict based on presidential immunity. This marks the first time Trump's administration has formally backed him in his criminal defense.
The DOJ wants to file a late amicus brief with the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, citing that parts of Trump’s state trial involved “official acts” protected by the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling—like Oval Office conversations with officials. The original trial judge, Juan Merchan, denied Trump's removal request and gave him no sentence before the inauguration. Trump is still appealing in state court but insists the federal courts should hear his immunity claim.
The Biden-era DOJ declined to weigh in before the 2024 election, but Trump’s current administration says it now wants to participate as an amicus. Prosecutors from the Manhattan DA’s office said the federal government had earlier chances to get involved and that the only real change is Trump’s return to power. Notably, Trump has appointed two of his former defense attorneys—Todd Blanche and Emil Bove—to top DOJ positions, though they have formally stepped away from the case and are not involved in the filing.