What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
May 13, 2025 Recap
Donald Trump participated in a signing ceremony and exchange of agreements in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, alongside Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. This signing ceremony offered a carefully choreographed display of strategic alignment between the United States and Saudi Arabia. However, beneath the surface of diplomatic pageantry and mutual praise, the event reflected several concerning dynamics worth critiquing.
First, the sheer volume and breadth of agreements—ranging from defense modernization to cultural preservation—raise questions about oversight, transparency, and long-term accountability. With so many memoranda and intentions announced in a single event, there is little room for public scrutiny or congressional review of individual deals, particularly those involving sensitive areas like defense cooperation, intelligence sharing, and space collaboration. The symbolism of a U.S. president co-signing military modernization with an unelected monarchy further underscores America’s deep entanglement with authoritarian regimes, especially when such alliances are driven by arms sales and energy deals rather than democratic values.
Second, the emphasis on defense and military cooperation appears out of balance with the minimal attention given to human rights or civil society development. Saudi Arabia remains widely criticized for its record on press freedom, political dissent, and the treatment of women. Yet, this ceremony suggests an uncritical embrace of the Kingdom’s leadership, with defense and economic interests taking clear precedence over moral considerations. The lack of any public discussion on these issues reinforces the perception that U.S. foreign policy under Trump prioritizes transactionalism over principle.
Third, the inclusion of cultural and scientific collaborations—such as NASA joint ventures and Smithsonian agreements—may be intended to soften the optics of the broader strategic relationship, but it risks window-dressing a fundamentally militarized and commercially motivated alliance. These initiatives, while valuable in isolation, are overshadowed by the defense-heavy core of the agreements. Without safeguards for academic freedom or intellectual independence, they risk being co-opted into a broader soft-power campaign that legitimizes the Saudi regime.
Finally, this event also reflects a pattern in Trump’s foreign policy: spectacle over substance. The staging of a mass signing event in Riyadh, with layers of ceremony and symbolic partnership, mirrors other moments in his diplomacy that emphasize optics and deal-making theatrics over sustained policy development or institutional reform. The strategic partnership with Saudi Arabia may endure, but the ceremony underscores a deeper shift—one in which U.S. alliances are increasingly framed as business transactions rather than as partnerships rooted in shared values and long-term global stability.
While the agreements announced may foster economic and technological cooperation, the overall event prioritizes short-term strategic gains and commercial interests at the expense of democratic accountability, ethical consistency, and long-term geopolitical balance.
President Trump’s remarks at the U.S.-Saudi Investment Forum in Riyadh were sprawling, improvisational, and quintessentially reflective of his rhetorical style, marked by hyperbole, digression, and an overwhelming focus on self-promotion. Framed as a celebration of U.S.-Saudi relations and regional economic progress, the speech frequently veered into domestic political boasting, factual distortions, and overt flattery of Saudi leadership, particularly Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Trump’s tone alternated between informal admiration and bombastic assertion, often sounding more like a campaign rally than a diplomatic address. He opened with lavish praise for the Crown Prince and described the Saudi transformation as “unlike anything ever seen,” echoing the same superlatives he used to describe his own presidency and economic record. This established the speech’s central dynamic: a mutual admiration society between Trump and Saudi Arabia’s ruling elite, with little room for nuance.
Much of the speech focused on what Trump portrayed as unprecedented American economic success under his leadership. He claimed border crossings had dropped 99.999%, military enlistments were at a 30-year high, and that the United States had created over $10 trillion in investment in a matter of weeks—all figures that strain credulity or are simply inaccurate. He also declared that the U.S. had “no inflation,” a claim directly contradicted by economic data. These economic boasts were delivered with theatrical confidence but lacked any evidence or context, leaving them as hollow assertions rather than meaningful metrics. The speech frequently digressed into unrelated topics, such as chip manufacturing, the Gulf of Mexico allegedly being renamed the “Gulf of America,” and personal anecdotes about business leaders, creating an incoherent narrative with little thematic discipline.
On foreign policy, Trump drew a stark contrast between the Gulf nations—especially Saudi Arabia—and Iran, which he characterized as a crumbling, mismanaged regime run by a “water mafia.” He described Saudi Arabia’s modern infrastructure as a triumph of indigenous vision and economic independence, while condemning Iran for exporting terror and misrule. While his depiction of the Iranian regime’s destabilizing behavior was not without basis, the framing was cartoonishly binary. He lavished praise on the Gulf states for embracing modernization while vilifying Iran with little diplomatic subtlety. His rhetorical treatment of the Abraham Accords—calling on Saudi Arabia to join and suggesting it would “honor” him personally—transformed what should be a strategic diplomatic goal into a vehicle for personal legacy-building.
Trump also repeatedly injected partisan attacks into the speech, criticizing the Biden administration for “gross incompetence” and claiming that atrocities like October 7th and the war in Ukraine would not have occurred under his leadership. These comments were highly inappropriate in an international forum and reflected a deep breach of the traditional norm that politics stops at the water’s edge. Rather than promoting a unified American foreign policy vision, Trump repeatedly sought to relitigate his past presidency and attribute all regional instability to his successor. This undermined the credibility and statesmanship of his message.
Despite moments of diplomatic aspiration—such as his hope for Middle East peace, a new path for Iran, and increased investment in regional prosperity—Trump’s delivery and content often undercut his stated goals. His speech lacked coherence, relied on exaggerations, and often treated complex geopolitical dynamics with reductive simplicity. By personalizing diplomacy, exaggerating achievements, and politicizing international relationships, Trump delivered a performance that prioritized spectacle over strategy. It was an address designed to impress, not inform; to dominate the spotlight, not engage in meaningful dialogue. While the setting called for a sober articulation of vision and partnership, Trump instead offered a disjointed, self-congratulatory monologue that blurred the lines between governance and grandstanding.
A coalition of 20 Democratic state attorneys general filed two federal lawsuits against the Trump administration, accusing it of unlawfully threatening to withhold billions in transportation and disaster-relief funding unless states comply with its immigration enforcement policies. The lawsuits claim that letters from Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem demanded states end diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs and assist with federal immigration efforts or risk losing essential funds.
The attorneys general argue this violates the Constitution, as only Congress has the power to condition federal spending. They say the Trump administration is using federal funds as leverage to coerce states into enforcing immigration laws, which is the federal government’s responsibility. Critics like New Jersey AG Matthew Platkin and Illinois AG Kwame Raoul called the move politically motivated and dangerous to public safety.
Filed in Rhode Island, the lawsuits are part of a broader legal resistance by Democratic-led states against President Trump’s second-term agenda, particularly his aggressive immigration enforcement and punitive use of federal authority. California AG Rob Bonta and Rhode Island AG Peter Neronha warned the administration’s actions reflect “creeping authoritarianism.”
The Trump administration has announced the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Afghans living in the U.S., asserting that security and economic conditions in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan have improved enough to justify ending the deportation shield. The policy was initially implemented under President Biden following the 2021 U.S. withdrawal. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem claimed that Afghanistan no longer meets the legal criteria for TPS, citing a decline in humanitarian need and increased tourism as signs of stabilization.
However, critics—including refugee advocates, legal groups, and Afghan-American organizations—condemn the decision as politically motivated and dangerously detached from reality. They point to ongoing human rights abuses, gender-based violence, persecution of minorities, and food insecurity under Taliban rule. Lawsuits have already been filed against DHS for failing to follow required procedures in ending TPS, and the move has been labeled a betrayal of Afghan allies who supported U.S. forces during the war.
Roughly 10,000 Afghans were covered by TPS as of last year, with some 14,600 estimated as eligible. While many evacuees have obtained asylum or Special Immigrant Visas, advocates argue the abrupt TPS rollback jeopardizes those still in limbo and undermines America’s moral credibility and national security interests.
Harvard University expanded its lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's moves to cut off billions of dollars in federal funding to the Ivy League school on Tuesday after officials said they are terminating an additional $450 million in grants.
Harvard filed the amended complaint, opens new tab in federal court in Boston hours after a federal antisemitism task force announced that eight government agencies were canceling additional grants on top of the $2.2 billion in funding President Donald Trump's administration had already terminated.
The task force, which includes representatives from agencies including the U.S. departments of Education, Health and Human Services, and Justice, did so after accusing the Cambridge, Massachusetts-based school of failing to confront "pervasive race discrimination and anti-Semitic harassment plaguing its campus."
In response, Harvard expanded a lawsuit it first filed on April 22 after the administration froze the initial $2.2 billion to cover those latest research-grant terminations, which came from agencies including the U.S. departments of Defense and Energy as well as the National Science Foundation.
The revised complaint also now challenges a decision by the administration announced in a letter from Education Secretary Linda McMahon last week to freeze billions of dollars in future research grants and other aid until the nation's oldest and wealthiest college concedes to the administration's demands.
Harvard argues the administration's sweeping demands violate the free speech guarantees of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment. It says the massive funding freeze is overly broad and was instituted without following proper procedures.
"The Government has not identified - and cannot identify -any rational connection between antisemitism concerns and the medical, scientific, technological, and other research it has frozen or terminated," the lawsuit said.
Harvard is asking U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs to declare the administration's actions unlawful and block the grant terminations. She previously scheduled arguments in the case for July 21.
Trump has targeted Harvard, citing allegations of antisemitism on campus during pro-Palestinian protests. The protests were sparked by U.S. ally Israel's war in Gaza after the October 2023 attack on Israel by Palestinian Hamas militants.
Trump has alleged pro-Palestinian protesters are antisemitic and sympathetic to Hamas. Protesters, including some Jewish groups, say the government wrongly conflates their criticism of Israel's actions in Gaza with antisemitism and their advocacy for Palestinian rights with support for extremism.
The Trump administration has moved to cancel funding after announcing in late March it was launching a review of about $9 billion in grants and contracts with Harvard. Trump has also threatened to strip Harvard of its tax-exempt status.
Harvard in its complaint said it is committed to combating antisemitism and has taken steps to ensure its campus is safe and welcoming to Jewish and Israeli students. It said the administration's actions are a threat to academic freedom.
Harvard has a $53 billion endowment, the largest of any U.S. university, but the funds are often restricted and used for things like financial aid and scholarships.
U.S. District Judge Stephanie Haines ruled that President Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to deport alleged migrant gang members is lawful, diverging from two other federal court rulings that found the opposite. Haines, a Trump appointee, upheld the administration’s claim that criminal gangs like Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua represent a “predatory incursion” and can be treated as a wartime threat under the AEA. However, she criticized the administration for giving insufficient notice before deportations and ruled that migrants must receive 21 days’ notice and a chance to respond, in both English and Spanish.
The ruling affects a Venezuelan detainee (A.S.R.) who cannot be deported without this proper notice. Haines emphasized judicial deference to executive decisions made on classified information but acknowledged the case raises "significant issues" and deferred broader judgment to voters and lawmakers.
The ACLU disagreed with the ruling, especially the interpretation that the AEA can be applied in peacetime. Meanwhile, two other federal judges—in Texas and New York—recently ruled that the Trump administration's use of the AEA exceeds its legal scope and was not validly invoked in similar deportation attempts.
Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan has been indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of obstruction and concealing an individual from arrest, stemming from an April incident in which she allegedly helped an undocumented man evade U.S. immigration agents. The man, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, had previously been deported in 2013 and was in court on domestic abuse charges when ICE agents arrived seeking to detain him. After reportedly expressing anger over the agents’ presence and confronting them, Dugan allegedly led Flores-Ruiz and his attorney out a restricted back door. He was later captured after a foot chase. Dugan faces up to six years in prison if convicted. Her legal team states she maintains her innocence. The case is drawing comparisons to a similar one during Trump's first term, highlighting tensions between local courts and federal immigration enforcement. Dugan has been suspended from the bench by Wisconsin’s Supreme Court.