What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
May 12, 2025 Recap
Donald Trump’s executive order titled “Delivering Most-Favored-Nation Prescription Drug Pricing to American Patients” is a rhetorically aggressive and politically charged attempt to confront high domestic drug prices, but it relies on questionable legal footing, simplistic economic reasoning, and limited administrative feasibility. The order’s language is steeped in populist framing, portraying foreign governments and pharmaceutical companies as part of a coordinated “scheme” that exploits American consumers. By labeling other countries as “freeloaders” and accusing manufacturers of price discrimination, the order reduces a complex global pricing system, driven by diverse health systems, regulatory regimes, and patent laws, to a morality play of American victimhood. This ignores the fact that high U.S. drug prices are largely the result of domestic policy failures, including the lack of government negotiation in Medicare and weak regulatory oversight over monopolistic practices like patent extensions.
The “most-favored-nation” pricing model proposed in the order is not new and has been tried before with limited success. A similar Trump-era rule was blocked by courts, and this updated version again assumes sweeping executive authority that is likely to face legal challenges. Forcing manufacturers to sell drugs in the U.S. at the lowest price charged to any developed nation may seem fair on its surface, but it risks backfiring. Companies could respond by raising prices abroad or limiting supply to the U.S. altogether, and the move could violate trade agreements or disrupt international pharmaceutical markets. Moreover, the order’s threats—including importation of foreign drugs under section 804(j) of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, antitrust investigations, and revocation of FDA approvals—are either already available under existing law or deeply impractical without legislative action, robust regulatory infrastructure, and careful interagency coordination.
In addition to legal uncertainties, the order is diplomatically provocative. By framing foreign drug pricing as a national security concern, it escalates what is essentially a public health and trade issue into a geopolitical one. It also risks retaliatory measures from U.S. allies, who may view the policy as a coercive overreach. The suggestion of enabling direct-to-consumer drug sales at the most-favored-nation price is both logistically unfeasible and regulatory risky, given the complexities of pharmaceutical supply chains, quality control, and interstate commerce. While the order includes a standard disclaimer that it creates no enforceable rights or obligations, this only further highlights its symbolic nature.
Ultimately, this executive order is more of a political statement than a functional policy. It may succeed in energizing a base frustrated with high drug costs, but it offers little in the way of durable, legally grounded reform. Without Congressional support, multilateral negotiation, or systemic restructuring of domestic drug procurement practices, the order is unlikely to produce its intended results. It prioritizes optics over execution, reinforcing a pattern of adversarial policymaking that blames external actors for internal failings without offering a viable, cooperative path forward.
Source: White House Briefing Room
Donald Trump signed another executive order modifying reciprocal tariff rates with the People’s Republic of China, exemplifying his administration’s erratic and unilateral approach to trade policy. While the order frames itself as a measured response to “significant steps” taken by the PRC in trade discussions, it once again leans on a questionable invocation of emergency powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and the National Emergencies Act. These statutes, intended for genuine crises, are being stretched to justify routine trade adjustments, setting a troubling precedent that bypasses Congress and concentrates economic policymaking in the executive branch.
The core action of the order—suspending 24 percentage points of the tariff rate on Chinese imports for 90 days—is a sudden reversal of prior tariff hikes imposed just weeks earlier under previous executive orders. This reflects an unstable and whiplash-inducing tariff strategy that injects uncertainty into global markets and undermines long-term U.S. trade credibility. Compounding this instability is the administration’s failure to define what constitutes a “significant step” by China toward resolving trade imbalances or aligning on national security issues. By offering tariff relief based on vague diplomatic gestures rather than verifiable commitments or enforcement mechanisms, the administration weakens its own negotiating position.
The order is also overly bureaucratic and opaque, littered with dense tariff code language and layered references to multiple prior executive orders and memoranda. This convoluted presentation serves more to obscure than to inform, making it difficult for stakeholders, ranging from U.S. businesses to foreign governments, to interpret the substance or duration of the policy shift. Additionally, the decision to reduce certain duties on low-value imports and synthetic opioids raises questions about the coherence of the administration’s broader enforcement priorities, particularly given Trump’s prior claims that Chinese fentanyl imports constituted a national emergency.
Finally, the legal and procedural risks of this approach are significant. The continual modification of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule via executive fiat, without clear legislative backing or public rulemaking, invites domestic legal challenges and could trigger international trade disputes. This pattern of governance further entrenches a model in which the executive branch unilaterally dictates major shifts in trade policy under the guise of emergency powers, without a durable economic rationale or institutional accountability. Overall, the executive order continues the Trump administration’s pattern of impulsive, performative, and overly centralized trade governance, sacrificing stability and transparency for short-term political optics.
Source: White House Briefing Room
Donald Trump’s press conference alongside Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was sprawling, unfocused, and marked by a stream-of-consciousness delivery that frequently blurred the line between policy announcement and personal boasting. The president opened by claiming his administration had brokered a permanent ceasefire between nuclear powers India and Pakistan and that U.S. leverage, particularly in trade, was solely responsible for defusing the conflict. This assertion, made without corroboration or substantive detail, was emblematic of Trump’s broader tendency to overstate American influence and his personal role in global events. His remarks on the Houthis similarly relied on unverified claims and simplistic interpretations of complex geopolitical dynamics, suggesting a ceasefire was achieved merely by applying vague diplomatic pressure and trusting verbal assurances.
On trade, Trump declared a “total reset” with China following tariff negotiations in Geneva, yet his explanation was contradictory and confusing. While announcing reduced tariffs for a 90-day window, he simultaneously insisted that pre-existing tariffs on cars, steel, aluminum, and pharmaceuticals would remain in place. He celebrated the economic impact of his trade policies with hyperbole, citing Apple CEO Tim Cook as a partner in bringing manufacturing back to the U.S., and claimed—without evidence—that his administration had already generated over $10 trillion in investment within two months. His anecdotal style undermined the credibility of these announcements, as did his frequent interjections of personal nostalgia, perceived slights, and unresolved grudges with previous administrations.
The core of the press conference focused on a new executive order implementing a Most Favored Nation pricing model for prescription drugs. Trump repeatedly promised drug price reductions of 50 to 90 percent, castigating foreign nations for “extorting” pharmaceutical companies into offering them lower prices while American consumers foot the bill. While the international price disparity is real, Trump’s explanations were oversimplified, legally dubious, and lacking in policy clarity. His scapegoating of “middlemen”—whom he admitted he couldn’t identify—was used to deflect attention from the complex regulatory and market structures behind U.S. drug pricing. His narrative veered into personal territory, referencing a wealthy friend’s surprise at paying less for Ozempic in London, and concluded with broad accusations that Democrats had protected Big Pharma for decades, despite his own acknowledgment of having accepted large campaign contributions from the industry.
Trump’s remarks were reinforced by Secretary Kennedy, who portrayed Trump as uniquely courageous and unbuyable, claiming that Democrats—including Bernie Sanders—had failed for decades to address the issue due to pharmaceutical lobbying. Kennedy’s statement was effusive and politically charged, casting Trump as the only leader willing to confront the drug lobby. Dr. Mehmet Oz, whose role remains ambiguous, offered emotionally charged anecdotes about patients resorting to GoFundMe campaigns to afford treatments. He echoed Kennedy’s praise, while offering few concrete policy details. Additional commentary from NIH and FDA officials emphasized market-based fairness and the intent to use trade pressure against foreign governments to support American pharmaceutical pricing, though these promises were vague and aspirational.
Throughout the event, Trump repeatedly digressed, shifting from drug pricing to topics like the Air Force One gift from Qatar, potential ceasefire talks in Turkey between Russia and Ukraine, accusations of genocide in South Africa, and his frustration with the Boeing production timeline. His rhetoric on these issues was peppered with exaggerations, speculative diplomacy, and defensive jabs at the media. His final remarks returned to economic nationalism, linking the drug pricing initiative to broader trade retaliation strategies and reiterating his belief that American patients had been treated unfairly for decades.
In sum, the press conference resembled a political performance more than a substantive policy briefing. Though Trump claimed to be taking on Big Pharma and advocating for U.S. consumers, his delivery was chaotic, repetitive, and saturated with personal asides. The executive order on drug pricing may mark a significant shift in approach, but its rollout was undermined by the president’s lack of focus, unsupported claims, and tendency to frame every issue through the lens of personal grievance or triumph. The presence of Kennedy and Oz added a populist flair but did little to bolster the policy’s credibility. Instead, the event served primarily to amplify Trump’s narrative of victimization, vindication, and self-styled heroism in the face of entrenched global and domestic adversaries.
The Trump administration has resettled 59 white Afrikaners from South Africa in the United States under a newly created refugee program, which officials claim is a response to alleged racial discrimination and violence against white South Africans. In a White House press conference, President Donald Trump described the situation in South Africa as a “genocide,” aligning with a conspiracy theory popular in far-right circles that claims white farmers and Afrikaners are victims of systematic persecution since the fall of apartheid. Trump’s assertion has been widely criticized by international media, human rights groups, South African officials, and even some Afrikaners, who dispute that they are being targeted in any organized or state-sanctioned way.
This policy marks a stark contrast with the Trump administration’s broader refugee and immigration strategy, which has dramatically curtailed admissions from predominantly non-white countries. Refugees from nations such as Haiti and Afghanistan, where genuine humanitarian crises persist, have largely been denied entry. Al Jazeera reporter Patty Culhane noted that the administration prioritized bringing in white South African immigrants and even subsidized their relocation, despite the fact that these individuals had not fled violence, nor were they living in refugee camps.
The South African government has strongly rejected Trump’s claims, labeling them “completely false.” President Cyril Ramaphosa, a key figure in the anti-apartheid struggle, pointed out that Afrikaners continue to enjoy substantial economic and social privilege in post-apartheid South Africa. Statistical data from the Review of Political Economy supports this, showing that white South Africans still own roughly 75% of all private land and possess about 20 times the wealth of the Black majority.
Relations between the Trump administration and South Africa have grown increasingly strained. The U.S. previously expelled South Africa’s ambassador following diplomatic disagreements, including South Africa’s role in a legal case accusing Israel, an American ally, of genocide in Gaza at the International Court of Justice.
The Trump administration’s refugee offer to Afrikaners began in February, citing attacks on white farmers as a justification for asylum. Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau welcomed the new arrivals by praising their cultural legacy and the hardships they purportedly endured, stating that they were “really welcome here.”
However, human rights organizations have criticized the move as politically motivated and discriminatory. Bill Frelick, refugee policy director at Human Rights Watch, pointed out that these Afrikaners had not met the traditional criteria for refugee status—they were neither fleeing war zones nor living in displacement camps. Rather, they belong to a demographic historically associated with the apartheid regime that oppressed South Africa’s Black majority. Frelick called the fast-tracked entry “unprecedented” and suggested it reveals a racially biased application of U.S. refugee policy under Trump.
The Trump administration has rescinded $35 million in federal grants intended to support digital safety and literacy programs across Maine, citing alleged unconstitutional racial preferences in the funding criteria of the Digital Equity Act. The programs, part of the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, were set to enhance telehealth access, internet connectivity, and digital inclusion efforts for roughly 130,000 residents. Maine officials expressed deep disappointment, as the grants were awarded after two years of planning. Local institutions like the Bridgton Public Library, which used prior funds to provide high-demand internet hotspots to students, now face uncertainty about sustaining such services. President Trump recently denounced the Digital Equity Act on social media as “RACIST and ILLEGAL,” aligning with the Commerce Department's justification for halting the grants. Maine state officials are now exploring legal and administrative options in response.
Harvard President Alan Garber responded to a letter from Education Secretary Linda McMahon that accused the university of mismanagement and ideological bias, and which threatened to withhold federal funding unless the school adopted sweeping reforms. McMahon demanded Harvard end identity-based programs, return to merit-based admissions and hiring, and increase cooperation with federal agencies. The Trump administration had already frozen $2.2 billion in grants and is pushing to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status.
Garber defended Harvard’s academic integrity and accused the administration of unconstitutional overreach. In his letter, he rejected claims of political partisanship, highlighted leadership changes and internal reviews, and emphasized the merit-based nature of admissions, including for international students. He reaffirmed Harvard’s commitment to free expression and warned against government retaliation. Garber concluded by stressing the historic value of federal-university partnerships in advancing research and innovation.
A federal judge on Monday refused to block the Internal Revenue Service from sharing immigrants’ tax data with Immigration and Customs Enforcement for the purpose of identifying and deporting people illegally in the U.S.
In a win for the Trump administration, U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich denied a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit filed by nonprofit groups. They argued that undocumented immigrants who pay taxes are entitled to the same privacy protections as U.S. citizens and immigrants who are legally in the country.
Friedrich, who was appointed by Donald Trump, had previously refused to grant a temporary order in the case.
The decision comes less than a month after former acting IRS commissioner Melanie Krause resigned over the deal allowing ICE to submit names and addresses of immigrants inside the U.S. illegally to the IRS for cross-verification against tax records.
“The plaintiffs are disappointed in the Court’s denial of our preliminary injunction, but the case is far from over. We are considering our options,” Alan Butler Morrison, the attorney representing the nonprofit groups, wrote in an email. He noted that the judge’s ruling made it clear that the Department of Homeland Security and the IRS can’t venture beyond the strict limitations spelled out in the case.
“So far, DHS has not made formal requests for taxpayer data, and plaintiffs will be keeping a close watch to be sure that the defendants carry out their promises to follow the law and not use the exception for unlawful purposes,” Morrison said.
The IRS has been in upheaval over the Trump administration's decisions to share taxpayer data. A previous acting commissioner announced his retirement earlier amid a furor over Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency gaining access to IRS taxpayer data.
The Treasury Department says the agreement with ICE will help carry out President Donald Trump’s agenda to secure U.S. borders and is part of his larger nationwide immigration crackdown, which has resulted in deportations, workplace raids, and the use of an 18th-century wartime law to deport Venezuelan migrants.
The acting ICE director has said that working with the Treasury and other departments is “strictly for the major criminal cases.”
Advocates, however, say the IRS-DHS information-sharing agreement violates privacy laws and diminishes the privacy of all Americans.
In her ruling, Friedrich said the agreement doesn’t violate the Internal Revenue Code, so the IRS hasn’t substantially changed how it handles taxpayer information. Instead, the Trump administration has decided to use already existing “statutorily authorized tools” to help with criminal investigations, Friedrich wrote.
Federal law allows the IRS to release some taxpayer information to other agencies if the information may assist in criminal enforcement proceedings, and the requesting agency meets certain criteria, the judge said.
Still, that doesn’t mean that all the information the IRS holds can be turned over, Friedrich said.
First, the investigating agency has to already have the name and address of the person whose information is being sought. Then the agency has to provide that information to the IRS, along with the time span for which the information relates, the law that allows the information to be released, and the reason why any IRS-disclosed information would be relevant to the investigation.
“In other words, the IRS can disclose information it obtains itself (such as through audits), but not information it obtains exclusively from the taxpayer (such as a tax return filed by the taxpayer),” Friedrich wrote. She noted the law contains a significant exception — a taxpayer’s identity, including the individual’s name, address, or taxpayer identifying number, isn’t considered part of the protected tax return information.
The Pentagon has halted gender-affirming healthcare for transgender service members as it begins implementing President Donald Trump's renewed ban on transgender individuals in the military. A memo from acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs Stephen Ferrara ordered the immediate end to new hormone treatments and surgeries. This move follows a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing the administration to proceed with discharges of transgender troops while legal challenges continue.
Advocates condemned the healthcare suspension as cruel and discriminatory. A transgender service member described it as proof that transgender personnel are no longer entitled to equal medical care. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth previously instructed the military to begin discharging transgender troops by June 6 unless they leave voluntarily. Trump had signed an executive order in January reversing the Biden-era policy that allowed transgender people to serve openly. Hegseth, a former Fox News host, has publicly opposed gender-affirming care, calling it “lunacy” and insisting taxpayers should not fund it, aligning with broader culture war positions.