What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
Weekend Recap: April 5th and 6th, 2025
On Saturday, the White House announced that Donald Trump had advanced to the final round of a senior golf championship in Jupiter, Florida. The announcement came as the president faced intensifying criticism over newly imposed global tariffs that triggered a significant stock market downturn. On April 2, Trump declared what he called “Liberation Day,” unveiling sweeping tariffs, including a 10 percent baseline on nearly all imports and much steeper rates—some exceeding 40 percent—on select trading partners. The move led to the worst day on Wall Street since the 2020 COVID-19 crash, with the S&P 500 falling 4.84 percent, the Nasdaq dropping 5.97 percent, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average losing nearly 4 percent. Economists and Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell warned that the tariffs would likely fuel inflation, contradicting Trump’s claims that foreign countries would bear the costs.
Amid the market chaos, Trump spent the weekend at his Florida properties, golfing and attending events, including the Saudi-funded LIV Golf tournament and a fundraising dinner at Mar-a-Lago. His absence from a dignified transfer ceremony honoring four U.S. soldiers killed in a training accident in Lithuania drew sharp rebukes from critics, who pointed to the contrast between Trump’s personal leisure and the nation's mourning. The White House stated that the Secretary of Defense would represent the administration at the ceremony, but that did little to quiet the backlash. Critics accused Trump of being disconnected from the struggles of ordinary Americans, with Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer saying the president was living in a "billionaire bubble." Media figures and commentators echoed this sentiment, highlighting what they saw as an insensitive juxtaposition of recreational golf and economic hardship.
Trump defended his policies on his Truth Social platform, calling the tariffs part of an “economic revolution” and urging supporters to “hang tough.” He claimed that his strategy would ultimately benefit the U.S., citing a positive March jobs report—though it reflected conditions prior to the tariff announcement. While some Republicans, such as Senator John Barrasso, praised Trump as a savvy dealmaker, the overall optics of the situation have intensified scrutiny over his leadership. The decision to highlight a golf win during a period of economic volatility and national grief reflects a troubling prioritization of image over substance. It also underscores a broader critique of Trump’s second-term approach, which appears increasingly rooted in personal branding and economic nationalism, often at the expense of diplomatic tact and public sensitivity.
U.S. stock futures plunged Sunday evening, signaling more market turmoil ahead following last week’s historic losses. S&P 500 and Nasdaq futures each dropped around 4%, Dow futures fell by 1,400 points, and Russell 2000 futures slid by 5.6%, indicating widespread investor concern. Even bitcoin, which had shown resilience on Friday, dropped by 5%, and U.S. crude oil prices fell to their lowest level since April 2021. The selloff comes in response to a sweeping new tariff plan from President Donald Trump, which includes baseline 10% tariffs on imports that went into effect Saturday, with increases up to 79% for countries like China beginning Wednesday. In retaliation, China announced a 34% tariff on all U.S. goods, set to begin on April 10—the same day U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods are scheduled to rise significantly.
Despite the market shock, the White House appears committed to its course. Trump defended the plan on Truth Social as an "economic revolution," while Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick confirmed there would be no delays, stating that the plan is designed to bring manufacturing back to the U.S., primarily through automation rather than human labor. The administration described the move as an effort to reverse decades of “globalist economic destruction,” yet critics argue the proposal could instead dismantle the very global trade structure on which modern U.S. industries rely.
Wall Street analysts and economists are deeply concerned. JPMorgan forecasts a rise in unemployment to 5.3% and warns of a significant pullback in consumer spending, which accounts for 80% of the U.S. economy. Analysts also predict contractions in the economy as rising prices outpace slowing income growth. Tesla and Apple saw sharp reductions in their stock price forecasts, with analysts warning the tariffs could set the U.S. tech sector back a decade. Elon Musk, typically an ally of Trump’s deregulation agenda, criticized the plan, while investor Bill Ackman urged the president to reconsider, warning of a "self-induced economic nuclear winter."
Unlike past administrations that have used tariffs as strategic leverage, Trump appears intent on overturning the very foundations of global trade. His rhetoric, heavily nationalist and dismissive of economic consensus, signals a deeper ideological battle rather than a practical policy initiative. What’s unfolding is not simply a trade dispute but a full-scale economic gamble—one that may lead to severe domestic consequences. Without a strategic recalibration or international dialogue, the U.S. risks plunging into a recession of its own making.
Kevin Hassett’s appearance on This Week with George Stephanopoulos serves as a revealing window into the Trump administration’s economic messaging in the face of mounting criticism over tariffs, inflation, and market volatility. While Hassett attempts to defend President Trump’s trade strategy as pro-worker and fundamentally sound, his responses are riddled with inconsistencies, economic oversimplifications, and rhetorical evasions. From the outset, he deflects questions about rising consumer prices by suggesting a “logical disconnect” in the media’s narrative—claiming that if foreign countries are angry and retaliating, it must mean they are bearing the brunt of tariffs, not U.S. consumers. This false binary ignores the very real possibility that both foreign exporters and American consumers are being harmed simultaneously, a fact well-supported by mainstream economic analysis.
Hassett downplays concerns from economists, including those at Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, and even the Federal Reserve, by suggesting that only minor price increases may occur. He offers no substantive data to counter these projections, instead falling back on a talking point that persistent trade deficits prove U.S. consumers haven’t been sensitive to past price changes. This reasoning is economically incoherent; trade deficits are shaped by a complex mix of global capital flows, exchange rates, and industrial capacity—not simply short-term shifts in consumer price elasticity. When pressed on Trump’s apparent endorsement of a theory that a market crash would be a deliberate strategy to pressure the Fed to lower interest rates, Hassett again dodges. He refuses to directly answer whether this reflects Trump’s actual economic strategy, saying only that the president “is allowed to have an opinion,” a clear evasion that leaves the public guessing about whether the administration is willing to manipulate markets for policy leverage.
In touting job growth—particularly in the auto sector—Hassett cherry-picks data and leans on anecdotal evidence that some plants are adding shifts, even as companies like Stellantis announce layoffs. His insistence that recent job growth reflects the success of tariffs ignores the broader labor market picture and downplays contradictory trends within the same industry. When Stephanopoulos reads aloud criticism from Republican Senator Rand Paul, who correctly labeled tariffs as taxes that harm American consumers, Hassett concedes that tariffs are “a form of tax” but immediately attempts to neutralize the point by referencing unrelated tax cuts. This rhetorical sleight-of-hand cannot conceal the fundamental truth: tariffs increase costs, and those costs are either absorbed by consumers, producers, or both.
Perhaps the most troubling moment came when Hassett struggled to explain why Russia, alone among America’s major trading partners, was not subject to new tariffs. He attributes this to the sensitive nature of ongoing peace negotiations but fails to justify why economic leverage should be abandoned in this case when it’s being aggressively applied to allies like Canada and Europe. This exemption undermines the administration’s claim to evenhandedness in tariff policy and raises questions about the political calculus behind these decisions. On inflation, Hassett seeks to blame “runaway spending” under President Biden while ignoring the inflationary risks inherent in Trump’s own trade policy, which disrupts supply chains and raises input costs for U.S. manufacturers. His attempt to credit current disinflation to Trump-era policies is ahistorical and ignores real-time warnings from Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell.
In the final portion of the interview, Hassett admits he is out of the loop on negotiations with China over TikTok and the country’s plans to retaliate with counter-tariffs. For the president’s top economic advisor to be unaware of critical developments in one of the most consequential U.S.-China economic standoffs suggests a striking lack of internal coordination. In sum, Hassett’s performance reflects an administration committed to a hardline trade ideology but unprepared—or unwilling—to address the real-world consequences of its own policies. The evasions, contradictions, and reliance on campaign-era platitudes over empirical clarity undermine the credibility of the administration’s economic case and leave many of Stephanopoulos’s most pressing questions unanswered.
Kristen Welker interviewed Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Meet the Press in an appearance that served as a test case for the Trump administration’s ability to defend its sweeping new tariffs in the face of economic backlash—and by most measures, the defense fell short. Bessent adopted a strategy of minimizing the impact of the more than $6 trillion lost in market value following the announcement, insisting that markets are “organic animals” and prone to short-term overreactions. This effort to deflect concern came across as tone-deaf, especially given that over 160 million Americans are invested in the market, many of whom are approaching or entering retirement. When pressed by host Kristen Welker to offer a timeline for the expected economic “adjustment,” Bessent repeatedly dodged the question, instead drawing vague comparisons to Ronald Reagan’s battle against inflation and asserting that the administration would “hold the course.” The absence of clear metrics, timelines, or a definition of success reinforced the perception of economic policy being driven by ideology rather than strategic planning.
Perhaps most problematic was Bessent’s shifting language on inflation. When confronted with his own past statements acknowledging that tariffs are inflationary, Bessent attempted to reframe tariffs as “one-time price adjustments,” downplaying concerns even as Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell warned just days earlier that the new tariffs risk driving prices higher. Bessent also relied on cherry-picked data, citing a study showing a mere 0.7% increase in price levels during Trump’s first term despite a 20% tariff on Chinese goods. What he neglected to mention was the broader economic consensus: that tariffs from that era directly cost U.S. consumers nearly $80 billion and drove up prices on key goods like washing machines and auto parts. His dismissal of current retirement losses as something most Americans “don’t look at day-to-day” was similarly dismissive, ignoring the anxiety and very real financial strain facing people watching their savings shrink amid market volatility.
Bessent’s attempts to cast the tariffs as both permanent and negotiable added to the confusion. When asked point-blank whether President Trump views them as leverage or policy, Bessent refused to offer a clear answer, instead reverting to vague assertions about “maximum leverage” and bad behavior by trade partners. This ambiguity is more than a communications flaw—it actively fuels the kind of uncertainty that rattles markets and undermines investor confidence. While Bessent pointed to falling oil prices and lower interest rates as hidden victories, he failed to establish any causal connection between those trends and the tariffs, much less argue convincingly that they would compensate for the economic pain imposed on consumers.
Bessent’s interview revealed more about the administration’s public relations approach than its economic strategy. His reliance on selective data, evasive language, and Reagan-era nostalgia offered little reassurance to Americans grappling with the immediate consequences of a policy billed as long overdue economic rebalancing. Rather than fortify the administration’s case, the interview exposed the shakiness of its messaging and the political risk of promising long-term gains while Americans endure short-term pain with no clear end in sight.
Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins appeared on CNN’s State of the Union with Jake Tapper in yet another vivid example of the Trump administration's struggle to communicate economic policy with clarity, consistency, and credibility. Tapper’s central question—whether the newly announced global tariffs are negotiable or permanent—was asked multiple times, yet never received a clear answer. Rollins oscillated between framing the tariffs as a bold opening move in trade negotiations and defending them as a permanent fixture of Trump’s “new American order.” This contradiction exposed a deeper incoherence at the heart of the policy: if tariffs are permanent, they can’t be leveraged in negotiations; if they’re negotiable, their framing as a national security imperative becomes politically hollow.
Instead of offering concrete economic rationale, Rollins relied heavily on ideological and historical appeals, invoking Alexander Hamilton and framing the tariffs as a return to the “founding vision” of American protectionism. Such references oversimplify complex trade dynamics and substitute patriotic nostalgia for policy substance. This became even more apparent when Tapper pressed Rollins on criticisms from the American Enterprise Institute (A E I), a conservative think tank, which alleged that the administration miscalculated tariff rates by using retail prices instead of import prices—resulting in rates up to four times too high. Rather than respond to the substance of the critique, Rollins dismissed A E I as politically opposed to Trump and “just wrong,” sidestepping any effort to validate or rebut their economic analysis.
Throughout the interview, Rollins leaned on emotional, populist rhetoric to deflect from hard policy questions. She declared that the U.S. produces “the safest, most secure food in the world,” accused European regulators of using “fake science” to block American products, and repeatedly emphasized the suffering of American farmers due to foreign tariffs—without explaining how the Trump administration’s global tariff regime would realistically overcome these barriers. Her statements about economic pain were contradictory: on the one hand, she celebrated the tariffs as the start of a “new golden age”; on the other, she admitted that farmers might need emergency subsidies—again—echoing the ad hoc bailout policies of Trump’s first term.
The symbolic absurdity of imposing tariffs on the uninhabited Heard and McDonald Islands—home only to penguins—went unanswered. Rollins dismissed Tapper’s question as unserious, but this moment encapsulated a broader problem: a lack of seriousness and attention to detail in the administration’s economic rollout. If tariff policy includes irrelevant, nonsensical targets, what does that say about the robustness of the overall strategy?
Moreover, Rollins dismissed the $6.6 trillion drop in market value since the tariff announcement as a temporary “adjustment,” failing to address investor panic or offer any reassurance grounded in economic forecasting. Her response to concerns from Republican Senator Thom Tillis—who warned that farmers are “one crop away from bankruptcy”—was equally weak. Rollins acknowledged the problem but offered only vague promises of future aid, reinforcing the impression that this policy shift was not paired with adequate preparation to mitigate its harms.
Rollins’ performance reflected many of the Trump administration’s chronic messaging flaws: an overreliance on ideological posturing, evasive responses to valid criticisms, and an inability to bridge the gap between political vision and policy execution. The interview revealed more about the administration’s economic anxieties than its economic strategy.
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick’s appearance on Face the Nation was a textbook example of campaign-style rhetoric overtaking substantive policy explanation. Throughout the interview, Lutnick relied heavily on populist talking points—frequently invoking phrases like “they’re ripping us off” and framing Donald Trump as the singular savior of American industry—without offering the clarity or detail necessary for an actual economic policy rollout. While he repeatedly insisted that the tariffs were a matter of national security, aimed at reviving domestic manufacturing in semiconductors, steel, and medicine, he offered no real roadmap to achieve that re-industrialization. When pressed by Margaret Brennan on issues like the duration of the tariffs, whether subsidies were being considered to ease the burden on American businesses, or even why irrelevant territories like the Heard and McDonald Islands were included in the tariff list, Lutnick dodged, deflected, or pivoted to campaign slogans.
Brennan attempted several times to move the conversation toward practical considerations—such as how long the tariffs would last, whether CEOs could make informed investment decisions with the current level of uncertainty, and what the administration was doing to shield American workers and businesses from inevitable retaliation. Lutnick, in response, remained in full promotional mode, insisting that “trillions of dollars” were on their way to the U.S., that robotic factories would usher in a golden age for American tradecraft, and that President Trump was finally ending decades of global exploitation. However, he failed to address critical concerns about automation replacing union jobs, the absence of a worker transition plan, or the geopolitical consequences of blanket tariffs that appear more symbolic than strategic.
Most tellingly, Brennan reminded Lutnick that “the campaign’s over,” pressing him to acknowledge the difference between political messaging and governing with clarity and foresight. Yet, Lutnick continued to treat the interview like a victory rally, repeating the administration's talking points almost verbatim without addressing the economic chaos already rippling through global markets. His repeated insistence that “the tariffs are coming” and that “America will be protected” was delivered with absolutist fervor, suggesting a top-down approach that places ideology over adaptability. The result is a message that offers little comfort to investors, economists, or trade partners looking for coherence in U.S. economic policy.
Ultimately, the interview illuminated a troubling gap between rhetoric and reality. Lutnick’s vision lacked the specificity required to inspire confidence. Rather than laying out a clear path forward, he delivered a circular argument that invoked national greatness while sidestepping how that greatness would be restored in practice. For a commerce secretary, that’s a missed opportunity—and a red flag for anyone trying to make real-world decisions based on the administration’s economic direction.
Attorney General Pam Bondi’s interview on Fox News Sunday was more political than legal, marked by aggressive partisanship and a recurring effort to frame legal challenges against President Trump as unjustified attacks on executive authority. While she assured host Shannon Bream that Trump would comply with any final Supreme Court rulings, Bondi quickly pivoted to portray the high volume of lawsuits against the administration—over 170, by her count—as a “constitutional crisis.” This framing is rhetorically powerful but legally flawed. The judiciary exists precisely to review the legality of executive actions; labeling that process as a crisis not only misrepresents the role of the courts but also encourages distrust in foundational legal institutions. Her assertion that Trump was elected by an “overwhelming majority” is factually incorrect and further reflects a tendency throughout the interview to prioritize narrative over accuracy.
Bondi’s celebration of a Supreme Court ruling allowing Trump to halt funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion programs revealed more about her political aims than her legal reasoning. Rather than explaining the constitutional arguments at play, she presented the decision as a sweeping victory for “taxpayer control,” using language that echoes populist resentment but lacks clarity on the ruling’s scope. Her metaphor of fighting lawsuits as a game of “whack-a-mole” with district courts disparages judicial independence and suggests an executive branch hostile to legal scrutiny.
The interview’s most ethically troubling segment involved the case of Kilmar Armando Orbgo Garcia, an undocumented immigrant mistakenly deported despite a court order. Bondi acknowledged that Garcia had not been indicted, charged, or convicted of any crime, yet she repeatedly invoked unrelated anecdotes about MS-13 gang members to justify his removal. This guilt-by-association tactic substitutes inflammatory storytelling for evidence and undermines the basic legal principle that individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Her dismissal of the judge’s concerns about due process demonstrates a troubling disregard for constitutional protections.
Equally concerning was her response to a question about the government attorney who mishandled Garcia’s deportation case. Bondi confirmed that the attorney had been placed on administrative leave for allegedly failing to zealously advocate for the government's position. She implied that any deviation from Trump’s agenda constituted professional misconduct—an alarming standard that politicizes legal advocacy and threatens the independence of career prosecutors.
When the conversation turned to the death penalty, Bondi again aligned herself tightly with Trump’s directive, stating they would seek capital punishment “whenever possible.” Her remarks were clearly intended to appeal to a tough-on-crime base, but she dismissed Gen Z’s skepticism of the death penalty as misguided and naive. Rather than engaging thoughtfully with generational shifts in attitudes toward criminal justice, she cast dissenters as simply “lost,” reducing a complex debate to moral superiority and political loyalty.
The final moments of the interview revealed perhaps the most chilling element: Bondi’s unwillingness to categorically reject the idea of Trump seeking a third term. When asked directly, she neither affirmed the constitutional limit nor denied the speculation, saying instead that it would be a “heavy lift.” For an Attorney General, this evasiveness is deeply irresponsible. The 22nd Amendment is unequivocal—no person can be elected to the presidency more than twice. Bondi’s failure to uphold that standard in her public statements contributes to the erosion of democratic norms.
Bondi’s interview was a performance of unwavering loyalty to Donald Trump rather than a principled defense of the law. Her rhetoric was often misleading, her treatment of legal cases politically charged, and her attitude toward the judiciary dismissive. While she spoke forcefully and effectively to Trump’s political base, she did so at the cost of undermining public trust in the impartiality of the justice system.