What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
April 21, 2025 Recap
Donald Trump began the day posting on Truth Social in another example of his ongoing politicization of economic policy and institutions, particularly the Federal Reserve. The post attempts to recast himself as a prescient economic observer while accusing Fed Chair Jerome Powell of political manipulation and incompetence — all without offering a coherent or factually grounded economic analysis.
First, the claim that there is “virtually No Inflation” ignores broader economic data. While energy and some food prices may have come down in recent months, core inflation — which excludes volatile food and energy prices — often remains sticky and is the Federal Reserve’s main concern when setting interest rate policy. Trump's broad generalization that “most other 'things' [are] trending down” lacks the nuance and accuracy needed for serious economic discourse. It also dismisses inflation dynamics in sectors like housing, services, and healthcare, where prices tend to be more persistent.
Second, the post frames Powell as a political actor, asserting that he lowered rates during the last election cycle to help Joe Biden and Kamala Harris get elected — a baseless conspiracy. The Federal Reserve is an independent body, and there is no evidence to support the idea that its decisions were politically motivated in that context. By resurrecting this accusation, Trump continues a strategy of undermining institutions that do not conform to his agenda, particularly when they assert independence.
His characterization of Powell as “Mr. Too Late” and “a major loser” is part of his trademark rhetorical style, relying on ridicule rather than argument. But it sidesteps any meaningful discussion of the actual timing or rationale behind the Fed’s rate decisions, which are based on a complex balancing of inflation expectations, employment levels, and global economic conditions, not Trump’s preferred timeline or talking points.
Finally, Trump’s invocation of “Biden’s egg disaster!” is an unserious and inflammatory aside that trivializes real economic concerns for political theater. Rather than engaging substantively with economic indicators or monetary policy, the comment functions more as a personal jab dressed up as analysis.
Trump’s use of social media posts in this fashion to attempt to sway his base is a mixture of economic oversimplification, institution-bashing, and political grievance, all wrapped in misleading assertions. It does not engage seriously with monetary policy or inflation, and instead uses the topic as a vehicle for attacking perceived political enemies.
In another Truth Social post this afternoon, Donald Trump continued his broader strategy of attacking the legitimacy of the judiciary and stoking fear about immigration in order to justify sweeping, extrajudicial enforcement actions. The post is framed as a lament about the constraints imposed by the legal system, but it ultimately reads as an assault on constitutional due process and the separation of powers.
Trump's claim that he is merely doing “what [he] was elected to do” — removing criminals — grossly oversimplifies the complexity of immigration law and erases the distinction between unauthorized entry and violent crime. By referring to “people that came here illegally” interchangeably with “violent criminals and terrorists,” he conflates legal status with criminal behavior, a tactic long criticized for fueling xenophobia and undermining rational public discourse on immigration.
More troubling is his suggestion that courts — including the U.S. Supreme Court — are obstructing his authority because they are “intimidated by the Radical Left.” This impugns the judiciary’s independence and undermines public trust in the legal system by portraying judges as weak and politically compromised. His invocation of Justice Samuel Alito, currently under ethical scrutiny, further politicizes the Court’s internal divisions and frames judicial restraint as cowardice rather than constitutional fidelity.
Perhaps the most authoritarian moment in the post is Trump’s argument that due process, including the right to a trial, is an impractical luxury. By stating that holding trials for migrants would take “200 years” and labeling the situation “ridiculous,” Trump openly challenges the foundational principle that individuals, regardless of status, deserve fair legal proceedings. This echoes rhetoric from other moments in history when mass expulsions or detentions were justified by declaring due process infeasible — a dangerous normalization of lawless governance.
Finally, the closing mantra, “MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN,” attempts to package these deeply anti-democratic ideas in the familiar garb of patriotic restoration. But the vision Trump presents is not one of greatness; it is one where constitutional rights are abandoned, courts are politicized, and power is consolidated in the hands of an executive unconstrained by law.
This post exemplifies Trump’s broader narrative: governance through grievance, legality treated as obstruction, and mass deportation framed as national salvation. It is not a defense of law and order but a threat to it.
Donald Trump’s remarks during the 2025 White House Easter Egg Roll, along with his spontaneous press interaction, revealed a chaotic and unfocused approach that undermined the ceremonial and unifying purpose of the event. What began as a traditional celebration—with the national anthem and formal greetings—quickly devolved into a disjointed mixture of religious messaging, political self-praise, executive announcements, and adversarial exchanges with reporters. Trump moved erratically from praising Melania’s role in organizing the event to announcing an executive order lowering flags in honor of Pope Francis, but offered only shallow reflections on the pope’s legacy. His commentary on Pope Francis was marked by repetition, vague praise, and awkward phrasing, signaling a lack of genuine reverence or diplomatic nuance.
Throughout the speech, Trump repeatedly emphasized military and law enforcement recruitment numbers, attributing these claimed highs to a national religious revival. He connected Easter’s message of Jesus Christ’s resurrection to his administration’s broader ideological goals, promising to “bring religion back to America.” This blending of faith with state power, particularly in a civic setting, raises concerns about the politicization of religion and the exclusion of non-Christian or secular Americans from what is typically a nonpartisan holiday tradition. His comments imply that patriotism, law enforcement, and Christianity are synonymous, an assertion that marginalizes many citizens and contradicts the inclusive spirit expected of a presidential Easter event.
Trump’s impromptu gaggle with reporters was marked by incoherence, evasiveness, and misinformation. He repeatedly dodged or mocked questions about recent scandals involving cabinet officials, such as Secretary Hegseth’s use of encrypted apps, and dismissed ongoing concerns over sensitive military communications. His responses to questions about immigration, including deportations to Haiti and the Alien Enemies Act, were riddled with exaggerations and falsehoods. Trump again claims that “millions” of violent criminals have entered the country, echoing long-debunked rhetoric designed to stoke fear and justify draconian policies. When asked about the legality of deporting Haitian migrants who arrived under prior lawful programs, Trump pivoted to vague proclamations about safety and border strength, dodging the legal and humanitarian concerns altogether.
The lack of clarity and coherence in Trump’s delivery illustrated a broader pattern of instability in his public messaging. Rather than serve as a moment of national unity and celebration, the 2025 Easter Egg Roll became a platform for Trump to mix religious nationalism, performative patriotism, and combative political rhetoric. In doing so, he eroded the dignity of a cherished tradition and reinforced the impression of an administration governed more by spectacle than substance.
Donald Trump held a closed-door meeting on Monday with the CEOs of three major American retailers—Walmart’s Doug McMillon, Target’s Brian Cornell, and Home Depot’s Ted Decker—amid growing concern over the administration’s aggressive tariff plans. The meeting, which was not listed on Trump’s public schedule, focused on the potential impact of proposed reciprocal tariffs on the retail sector, which relies heavily on imported goods. Though a representative from Lowe’s was expected to join, the company ultimately did not attend, according to officials.
Following the meeting, all three companies issued carefully worded, near-identical statements characterizing the conversation as “productive” and “constructive,” and expressed appreciation for the opportunity to share their perspectives with the President. In a separate statement, Trump later confirmed the meeting, calling it a success and saying it was an “honor” to host the executives in the Oval Office.
The retail sector is particularly vulnerable to tariff increases, especially on goods imported from countries like China and Mexico, which are among the primary suppliers for many U.S. retailers. While Walmart may be relatively insulated—its CFO John David Rainey recently noted that approximately two-thirds of its U.S. inventory is made, grown, or assembled domestically—the remaining third still involves significant imports. Target, however, faces more direct exposure. Known for affordable fashion and home goods, most of which are manufactured overseas, Target has reported flat revenues for four years and has projected only 1% sales growth for the current fiscal year, making it more susceptible to rising costs from tariffs.
The meeting comes as the National Retail Federation, the industry’s largest trade group, continues to warn that tariffs will translate directly into higher prices for American consumers. David French, the NRF’s executive vice president of government relations, reiterated this point when Trump announced his tariff plan, calling it a source of “anxiety and uncertainty” for both businesses and consumers. The NRF has released estimates suggesting that the tariffs would increase the cost of common goods, such as sneakers, kitchen appliances, and mattresses, burdens that French said “hardworking American families” cannot afford.
Though the administration has since scaled back the original tariff proposal, retailers remain uneasy about the lack of clarity and the risk of further trade escalation, which could destabilize already fragile consumer demand and further strain supply chains still recovering from the disruptions of recent years.
Harvard University has filed a federal lawsuit against the Trump administration in response to threats to freeze over $3 billion in federal funding unless the university complies with a list of government demands, including those related to campus antisemitism. Harvard argues that the funding freeze is unconstitutional, violates the First Amendment, bypasses due process required under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and represents unlawful government overreach into academic independence.
The administration’s Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism froze $2.2 billion in grants and $60 million in contracts earlier this month, citing Harvard’s alleged failure to address antisemitism. An additional $1 billion in medical research funds is reportedly at risk. Harvard President Alan Garber rejected the government’s conditions, asserting the school will not relinquish its constitutional rights or independence.
The lawsuit contends there is no rational link between the government’s antisemitism claims and the frozen research funding, which supports critical scientific and medical work. It also challenges the administration’s broader campaign against other elite universities and raises concerns over threats to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status and international student programs.
Harvard seeks a court order to block the funding freeze, calling the administration’s actions an attempt to impose "unprecedented and improper control" over academic institutions.
The Department of Education announced it will resume collections on defaulted federal student loans starting May 5, ending a pause in place since March 2020. Over 5 million borrowers, some in default for more than seven years, may now face wage garnishment or have federal payments such as tax refunds withheld through the Treasury Offset Program.
Education Secretary Linda McMahon criticized the Biden administration’s student loan forgiveness efforts as unconstitutional and fiscally irresponsible, asserting that taxpayers should no longer bear the burden. She emphasized a return to lawful repayment practices to restore both personal and national financial stability.
Borrowers in default will be contacted prior to the deadline and are urged to pursue loan rehabilitation or income-driven repayment plans. Only 38% of the 45 million student loan borrowers are actively repaying their loans. President Trump has reaffirmed his administration’s stance against further debt forgiveness.
He is the biggest goddamn whiner. So embarrassing that this inept imbecile represents the USA.
Governing via social media posts. So wrong. Thanks for the analysis and commentary.