What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
April 11, 2025 Recap
Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt held a press briefing displaying a sharp reflection of the Trump administration’s second-term communication style—combative, triumphalist, and strategically populist. The tone of the briefing oscillated between assertive confidence and partisan attack, positioning Donald Trump as both hyper-effective and unjustly maligned by the previous administration and mainstream press. Leavitt opened with a list of administration victories, including the release of over 40 detained Americans abroad and a significant drop in inflation, but offers little nuance or context. Economic claims were exaggerated—such as her assertion that “trillions” in tariff revenue will be used to pay down the national debt—despite tariff revenues historically falling well below even $100 billion annually. She failed to address how tariffs ultimately act as taxes on American consumers, choosing instead to frame them as a tool of financial conquest.
On immigration, Leavitt embraced a maximalist enforcement posture, emphasizing the Alien Registration Act with language emphasizing punishment, detention, and permanent exclusion. She reinforced the administration’s belief that laws must be enforced to the letter but avoided addressing the civil liberties implications of such mass compliance efforts nor how due process will be handled in a policy likely to impact millions. Her description of President Trump as tireless and unrivaled in negotiating ability verged on the rhetoric of strongman politics, painting him as uniquely capable of reshaping global trade and restoring a “golden age” of American prosperity. Yet the mechanics of his plans are either withheld or glossed over.
Foreign policy moments are revealing. On Iran, Leavitt insisted that direct talks are happening while simultaneously threatening “all hell to pay” if the country fails to comply with Trump’s nuclear demands. On China, she championed economic aggression while offering no clarity on whether talks are actually underway, a contradiction that undermines her claim of strategic strength. Similarly, the Trump administration’s attempts to broker a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine are framed in business-like terms, with Trump allegedly “frustrated with both sides”—a phrase that notably downplays Russia’s role as the aggressor.
The inclusion of TikTok influencer and legal analyst Jordan Burman in the “new media seat” underscored a broader White House media strategy: bypass traditional outlets and court younger, digitally savvy audiences through curated, administration-friendly voices. This messaging tactic further narrows the administration’s echo chamber and erodes journalistic accountability. Throughout the briefing, Leavitt repeatedly dismissed concerns from reporters, especially regarding voter ID legislation and consumer confidence, relying instead on blanket reassurances and ad hominem attacks on critics.
In the final stretch, Leavitt made light of questions around presidential health and even jokes about a bird attacking Fox News’ Peter Doocy, revealing an undercurrent of media disdain that pervades the entire event. This press briefing was yet another example of campaign-style performance meant to project dominance, inflate accomplishments, and bypass scrutiny. The briefing sacrifices transparency for theatrics, offering more mythology than meaningful policy explanation.
Donald Trump’s National Security Presidential Memorandum titled “Military Mission for Sealing the Southern Border of the United States and Repelling Invasions” represents a sweeping escalation in the militarization of U.S. immigration policy. Issued as a follow-up to Executive Order 14167 and Proclamation 10886, the memorandum tasks the Department of Defense with taking direct control over portions of federal land along the southern border—including the Roosevelt Reservation—for the purpose of military operations, construction of barriers, surveillance equipment deployment, and enforcement activities. While the memorandum explicitly excludes federal Indian Reservations, it authorizes the rapid transfer or withdrawal of federal lands under emergency powers, bypassing standard environmental, legal, and procedural checks.
The memo is grounded in a controversial interpretation of the Constitution, wherein unauthorized immigration is treated as an “invasion,” thereby justifying the use of military force under the president’s commander-in-chief authority. This interpretation stretches traditional legal definitions and conflates civilian migration with military aggression, creating a dangerous precedent. It invokes Cold War-era laws such as the Internal Security Act of 1950 and 18 U.S.C. 1382 to justify the exclusion of individuals from newly designated military zones. These provisions, originally intended for internal security during wartime, are now being repurposed for domestic border enforcement, threatening civil liberties and potentially restricting access to journalists, residents, and humanitarian workers.
The memorandum further erodes the boundary between civilian and military jurisdiction. By subordinating traditional immigration enforcement agencies like Customs and Border Protection to a military chain of command, it frames immigration not as a civil policy challenge but as a national security crisis. The directive’s vagueness on the rules of engagement and its delegation of force protocols to the Secretary of Defense raises concerns about how force might be applied in border regions, particularly when dealing with unarmed migrants, asylum seekers, or U.S. citizens living nearby.
Federalism is also at stake. The memo outlines the possibility of activating the National Guard under Title 32—technically a state-controlled but federally funded status—but offers little clarity on what happens if state governors resist federal demands. This raises the potential for intergovernmental conflicts and lawsuits over the militarization of the border and the use of state-controlled forces for federal objectives.
Although the memo claims actions are “subject to the availability of appropriations,” it does not account for budget implications or provide transparency about costs, staffing, or logistical support. Moreover, it empowers the Department of Defense and Homeland Security to act unilaterally with limited oversight, offering only a vague 45-day “initial phase” review without requiring any form of public or congressional accountability. The language of the memorandum—marked by phrases like “repelling invasions” and “sealing the border”—is unmistakably political, intended to energize a nationalist base and escalate Trump’s broader agenda of consolidating executive power in response to perceived threats, real or manufactured.
This memorandum is less a policy directive than a political statement—a dramatic assertion of presidential authority framed around national emergency powers. It leverages fear-based rhetoric, expands military presence in domestic affairs, and undermines civilian oversight in matters of law enforcement, land management, and migration. While its short-term goals may deter unauthorized crossings, its long-term consequence may be the normalization of domestic military intervention in areas of policy traditionally managed by civilian agencies and democratic institutions.
Aboard Air Force One en route to Mar-a-Lago, Donald Trump gave a disjointed and largely incoherent set of remarks to the traveling White House press pool. The interaction, which should have offered the president an opportunity to clearly outline his agenda and reinforce leadership on key issues, instead descended into a muddled string of incomplete thoughts and offhand comments. Trump began by referencing a cognitive test he had taken, presumably to reassure the public about his mental acuity, but the explanation was vague and rambling: “I wanted to be a little right?” he said, without context or follow-up. Rather than instilling confidence, the statement invited more questions than it answered.
On the topic of the Abrego Garcia case, Trump briefly acknowledged the Supreme Court’s decision, saying he would comply and that he “respects the Supreme Court.” While this was one of the few coherent statements made, it lacked any substantive commentary on the rule of law or judicial responsibility, making the comment feel more like a checkbox than a genuine affirmation of institutional respect. He was also asked about his tariff policies—specifically the imposition and subsequent pause on a trade regime—but provided no clarity. His failure to explain the rationale behind the shifts left the impression of inconsistency and impulsive governance.
When asked about U.S.–Iran nuclear talks taking place in Oman, Trump simply reiterated that “Iran should not get a nuclear weapon,” offering no insight into diplomatic strategy or goals. It was a rote soundbite that failed to match the gravity of the topic. Similarly, when he briefly mentioned that his envoy, Steve Wickoff, had met with Vladimir Putin earlier that day, he provided no context, outcomes, or implications of the meeting. Given the controversial nature of Trump’s past interactions with Russia, this vague acknowledgment was a glaring missed opportunity to establish transparency or strategic intent.
Stylistically, the remarks were riddled with sentence fragments, filler phrases, and abrupt shifts in topic. It resembled a stream-of-consciousness monologue more than a presidential briefing. The setting—a casual back-of-the-plane press gaggle—might have lent itself to informal conversation, but the lack of coherence on weighty topics such as judicial compliance, international diplomacy, and economic policy was striking. In the end, what could have been a platform to showcase leadership instead underscored concerns about Trump's impulsive and scattered approach to governance.
The Department of Homeland Security has directed the Social Security Administration to enter the names of over 6,000 immigrants into a database typically used to track deceased individuals. This controversial move effectively cuts off these immigrants from legally working, receiving government benefits, or accessing financial services such as credit and bank accounts. According to a DHS official, the goal is to pressure these individuals into self-deporting as part of the Trump administration’s broader strategy to crack down on immigration. The immigrants affected reportedly possess valid Social Security numbers and entered the U.S. through now-defunct programs, some of which were created during the Biden administration.
A White House official reported that the immigrants are temporarily paroled and allegedly appear on the terror watchlist or have FBI criminal records, though no evidence was provided to support these claims. The official added that Customs and Border Protection terminated their parole on April 8, 2025, issuing written notice to each person. A DHS spokesperson defended the decision as a step toward improving inter-agency information sharing, citing the importance of identifying public safety threats, removing individuals from voter rolls, and tracking public benefits usage. The SSA has also renamed its “Death Master File” to the “Ineligible file,” signaling a formal change in how it handles such cases.
Critics have condemned the administration’s actions as unlawful and dangerous. Former SSA Commissioner Martin O’Malley, who served under President Biden, warned that marking individuals as dead without legal basis or due process sets a dangerous precedent. He emphasized that the ability to falsely invalidate a Social Security number could be extended to anyone. Senator Ron Wyden, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, added that this decision not only strips benefits from immigrants but threatens the integrity of the Social Security system itself. He accused the Trump administration of betraying its promise to protect Social Security, suggesting this action could rob American citizens of their rightful benefits.
Meanwhile, the SSA has made it more difficult for immigrants to obtain Social Security numbers and cards, now requiring in-person visits to field offices rather than issuing documents through U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. This procedural shift adds another barrier for immigrants trying to comply with the law. Adding to the political firestorm, Elon Musk has amplified baseless claims that Democrats are using Social Security to lure immigrants and manipulate voting outcomes despite offering no evidence. This rhetoric mirrors the administration’s justification for its aggressive immigration agenda and further politicizes an already fraught issue.
Ultimately, this maneuver represents a troubling abuse of bureaucratic systems to achieve ideological ends. By manipulating administrative databases to sideline and financially strangle immigrants, the Trump administration is bypassing legal norms and undermining institutional safeguards. The lack of transparency, due process, and oversight harms vulnerable populations and threatens the structural integrity of agencies designed to serve all Americans.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) announced it will now use X (formerly Twitter) as its primary public and press communications platform, replacing traditional press releases and memos. This change, confirmed by SSA regional commissioner Linda Kerr-Davis, represents a troubling departure from transparency and accessibility. By abandoning traditional press releases and official website updates, the agency is effectively limiting critical information to a platform that is neither universally used nor trusted—particularly among the elderly, rural communities, and those without reliable internet access. This change is especially concerning given that X, under Elon Musk’s ownership, has become a politically polarizing platform associated with algorithmic inconsistency and disinformation. The choice to make X the agency’s sole public-facing medium is impractical and politically loaded, given Musk’s close ties to the Trump administration.
Compounding this issue is the SSA’s decision to disband fully staffed public affairs offices and reassign communications personnel to field roles. While the agency cites staffing needs at local offices, this redistribution weakens its ability to engage the public, respond to crises, and clarify policy changes. The result is a hollowing out of essential government communication infrastructure at a time when the agency is undergoing significant policy shifts. Recent backpedaling on controversial verification standards and growing reliance on virtual services highlight the need for clear, accessible, and trustworthy outreach—something a single social media feed cannot provide.
This transition is emblematic of a broader trend under the Trump administration: centralizing control, reducing bureaucratic independence, and streamlining communications in ways that sideline marginalized communities. The SSA's new approach creates additional barriers for those facing challenges navigating the system, particularly individuals who depend on in-person assistance or struggle with online account access. Instead of aiming for modernization, the agency risks alienating its most vulnerable constituents. Rather than moving forward, the SSA is stepping away from its mission of serving the public equitably, and this strategy deserves urgent reevaluation.
A U.S. federal judge, Paula Xinis, sharply criticized the Trump administration for failing to comply with a court order to return Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident and Salvadoran migrant who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador on March 15, despite a judicial stay protecting him. The judge demanded daily updates on his status and criticized the government for failing to disclose his current whereabouts, stating bluntly: "Based on the record, you've done nothing."
The administration admitted the deportation was an error but claimed it cannot quickly reverse it due to diplomatic constraints. It challenged Xinis’ order to "effectuate" the return of Garcia, prompting a Supreme Court ruling that upheld the order but clarified that "facilitating" return doesn’t necessarily mean enforcing it directly.
At a court hearing, DOJ attorney Drew Ensign argued the court's deadlines were impractical but insisted the administration would comply. Xinis, unconvinced, expressed deep concern over the administration’s inaction. Meanwhile, small protests outside the courthouse demanded Garcia’s return.
The case underscores growing tensions between the Trump administration and federal courts, especially regarding executive authority over immigration and foreign policy. Critics argue the administration is violating due process, pointing to this case and similar deportations involving migrants with no criminal records or valid visas. The administration counters that courts are overreaching and interfering with its discretionary powers.
Donald Trump announced that five prominent law firms have agreed to provide hundreds of millions of dollars in free legal services in exchange for avoiding potentially damaging executive orders from his administration. The firms—Kirkland & Ellis, Allen Overy Shearman Sterling, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, Latham & Watkins, and Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft—will contribute significant pro bono work toward causes favored by the Trump administration, including veterans’ affairs and combatting anti-Semitism. In exchange, the administration will drop Equal Employment Opportunity Commission investigations into the firms' hiring practices and halt efforts to impose sanctions that could have disrupted their operations.
The agreements require the firms to contribute financially and disavow the use of what the administration calls “illegal” diversity, equity, and inclusion practices. They must also commit to accepting clients regardless of their political beliefs. Kirkland & Ellis, in a statement to its staff, framed the deal as a resolution that aligns with the firm’s merit-based values and allows it to continue operating without political interference. Other firms did not comment publicly.
These deals come amid a broader campaign by Trump to assert control over the legal community and extract concessions from institutions perceived to be hostile to his policies. Over the past two months, the administration has issued executive orders targeting major firms, threatening to revoke security clearances, bar employees from federal buildings, and cancel federal contracts. Some firms—such as WilmerHale and Jenner & Block—have fought back in court and temporarily blocked enforcement, while others have negotiated settlements. The first firm to strike such a deal was Paul Weiss, which agreed to provide $40 million in pro bono services. Additional firms like Skadden Arps, Willkie Farr & Gallagher, and Milbank have followed suit.
Notably, several of the targeted firms employ lawyers with ties to past investigations into Trump or connections to prominent Democrats, including those who worked with special counsel Jack Smith. These developments reflect Trump’s broader effort to reshape civil society through executive pressure, raising serious concerns about the politicization of legal practice and the erosion of professional independence.
U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump appointee, denied the Trump administration's request to stay his earlier ruling that reinstated The Associated Press into the White House press pool. This marks the second legal setback for the administration in the case this week.
McFadden had already temporarily stayed his ruling until April 13 to allow time for an appeal, but refused to extend that stay further. The Department of Justice had requested a longer pause until the appeals process concluded, arguing that McFadden’s order impinges on the president’s access to "intimate spaces" like the Oval Office, Air Force One, and Mar-a-Lago.
McFadden rejected this “intimate spaces” defense, calling it unsupported by legal precedent, especially since those locations often host journalists. He emphasized that the government hasn’t shown it’s likely to win on appeal and criticized it for raising new arguments, including a vague separation-of-powers claim, only at this late stage.
Crucially, McFadden reaffirmed that the First Amendment prohibits viewpoint-based discrimination among journalists: if access is granted to some, it cannot be denied to others based on their perspectives. He also noted that the DOJ ignored a key aspect of his ruling — a separate First Amendment retaliation claim — rendering their motion further deficient.
A federal court ruling has dealt a sharp blow to the Trump administration’s attempt to enforce a controversial executive order by withholding federal funding from the state of Maine. The administration froze funds after the state refused to comply with Trump’s February 2025 directive to ban transgender athletes from girls’ and women’s sports. The judge's decision, however, emphasized that the USDA violated legal procedure by unilaterally freezing funds meant to support critical programs—including school lunches and care services for children and disabled adults—without following the proper channels required under Title IX enforcement. In doing so, the administration attempted to use vital federal aid as leverage in a broader ideological battle, which the court found unlawful and unjustified.
This move represents a stark example of executive overreach and the politicization of civil rights enforcement. Rather than investigating and determining violations through established legal processes, the USDA preemptively punished the state, acting as judge, jury, and enforcer. The court’s ruling serves as a necessary check on this abuse of power, reinforcing that federal agencies cannot bypass legal procedure or weaponize basic public services to force compliance with ideological mandates. While the administration claimed it was acting in the name of fairness in women’s sports, its actions directly undermined the well-being of the very populations Title IX was designed to protect—particularly low-income students, women, and people with disabilities.
The use of children’s nutritional programs as a bargaining chip is ethically indefensible and reveals how deeply partisan priorities have infected federal governance under Trump's second term. By tying funding to ideological conformity, the administration risks turning civil rights law into a political weapon rather than a shield. Compounding the issue, Maine now faces escalating scrutiny from multiple federal departments, including referrals to the DOJ over the continued inclusion of trans athletes. The controversy intensified when Maine Rep. Laurel Libby publicly identified a trans athlete on social media, prompting a censure from her Democratic colleagues and further fueling the national spotlight on the state.
Even Republican Sen. Susan Collins, who shares the administration’s stance on limiting trans participation in girls' sports, has voiced opposition to the punitive nature of the funding freeze, advocating instead for resolution without harming her state’s most vulnerable residents. This case ultimately highlights the broader dangers of using federal power to enforce cultural policy, bypass constitutional safeguards, and punish political dissent. The court’s intervention provides temporary relief, but the underlying conflict—between state autonomy, civil rights protections, and federal overreach—remains unresolved and likely to escalate.