What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
March 12, 2025 Recap
The Oval Office meeting between President Trump and Irish Prime Minister Micheál Martin was intended to highlight the strong economic and cultural ties between the United States and Ireland, particularly around the tradition of St. Patrick’s Day diplomacy. However, the conversation quickly unraveled into a largely one-sided, meandering display of Trump’s grievances, political attacks, and personal preoccupations. While Martin maintained a tone of diplomacy, focusing on peace initiatives, shared investment, and the historical value of the U.S.-Ireland relationship, Trump frequently hijacked the discussion to revisit past policy fights, bash the European Union, and launch into scattered commentary on everything from tariffs to transgender athletes.
Trump’s remarks on trade relations were particularly combative. Rather than celebrating economic cooperation, he fixated on Ireland’s corporate tax structure. He accused the country of “taking” U.S. pharmaceutical companies—framing a competitive economic environment as theft enabled by “stupid” U.S. leadership. His repeated threats of reciprocal tariffs were framed less as strategic policy and more as retribution. Martin responded with poise, emphasizing Ireland’s reciprocal investment in the U.S. and the benefits both countries derive from their economic ties. Still, Trump’s tone remained adversarial, even when complimenting Ireland’s success.
Trump’s statements were reductive on education and laced with contempt for civil servants. He justified sweeping cuts to the Department of Education by asserting that many employees “never showed up to work” and leaned heavily on talking points about moving education back to the states. The rhetoric was simplistic, relying on anecdotal slights and unfounded international comparisons rather than substantive policy arguments. Similarly, his commentary on domestic economic conditions—like the price of eggs and gas—was framed with vague triumphalism and devoid of detailed economic analysis.
Trump’s foreign policy claims, especially on Ukraine and Russia, were laced with self-congratulation and dramatized war imagery. He portrayed himself as the only leader capable of preventing or resolving war while offering minimal concrete details about any ceasefire agreements. His assertions often lacked corroboration and leaned heavily on emotional appeal. By contrast, Martin presented a more balanced and empathetic reflection on the loss of life and the importance of sustained diplomatic efforts, particularly drawing on Ireland’s history with peacebuilding.
Discussions of Gaza and Israel revealed a similar dichotomy. Martin expressed concern for humanitarian suffering and reiterated Ireland’s long-standing support for a two-state solution. At the same time, Trump used the topic to revisit October 7th, condemn Hamas, and accuse critics of ignoring Israeli suffering. His language was blunt and, at times, inflammatory—referring to protesters and critics with disdain and accusing U.S. political opponents of sympathizing with terrorism.
Perhaps most jarring was the meeting’s overall tone, which frequently descended into campaign-style rhetoric. Trump used the platform to attack Democrats, accuse them of enabling crime and inflation, and disparage various political figures and groups. He even veered into commentary about media networks, immigrants, and gender identity issues—none of which were relevant to the meeting's intended focus. His delivery was unfiltered and improvisational, often giving the impression of a political rally rather than a statesmanlike engagement.
In contrast, Prime Minister Martin remained composed and diplomatic throughout, often redirecting the conversation toward mutual goals and historical friendship. Despite Trump’s digressions, Martin managed to highlight Irish contributions to the U.S. economy and reiterate Ireland’s commitment to peace and humanitarian values. Ultimately, the meeting underscored a stark contrast in leadership styles. While Martin upheld the tone of international diplomacy, Trump repurposed the occasion into a wide-ranging political monologue, offering more spectacle than substance.
President Trump’s address at the Friends of Ireland Luncheon was notably meandering and informal, often straying from central themes of diplomacy and Irish-American relations. His remarks leaned heavily on personal anecdotes, casual banter, and off-script digressions, such as comments about COVID interruptions, golf, and boxing. This conversational approach may have resonated with some, but it lacked the polish and structure expected at a formal bipartisan cultural celebration.
He acknowledged Irish contributions to American history, referencing Irish-American war heroes and cultural impact, but presented statistics (such as the claim that over 50% of Medal of Honor recipients were Irish) without verification—only to question them mid-speech. While these gestures appeared well-intentioned, they came off as improvised rather than grounded in prepared research.
Trump's shoutouts to friends in the audience, jokes about genetic toughness, and repeated praise of St. Patrick’s Cathedral leaned toward populist charm but at the cost of deeper reflection on Irish-American diplomacy or policy. His closing remark—suggesting he’d be present for at least “three more” of these luncheons—subtly nodded to electoral ambitions, injecting a partisan undertone into what is typically a unifying, cross-cultural event.
In contrast, Taoiseach Micheál Martin delivered a more structured and substantive speech. He emphasized historical solidarity, peace-building, and U.S.-Irish cooperation on global issues like Ukraine and the Middle East. His tone was diplomatic and gracious, reaffirming Ireland’s enduring gratitude toward the U.S. while honoring the shared legacy of resilience and partnership.
President Trump’s sweeping 25% tariffs on imported steel and aluminum triggered swift retaliatory action from Canada and the European Union on Wednesday. Canada imposed tariffs on more than $20 billion of American goods in response, while the EU targeted $28 billion in U.S. industrial and agricultural products. Trump quickly vowed to match any foreign tariffs with identical levies under a new “reciprocal tariffs” policy on April 2. Mexico, however, took a more measured approach, with President Claudia Sheinbaum stating her government would wait to see if a resolution is possible in the coming weeks before retaliating.
The tariff showdown is unfolding against a backdrop of broader economic instability. Federal agencies, including NOAA, are undergoing mass layoffs as part of Trump’s government downsizing efforts, with over 1,000 NOAA employees already laid off. Meanwhile, financial markets have been jittery, with recent volatility tied to the constant stream of tariff announcements and job cuts. While U.S. stocks saw a slight uptick on Wednesday, fears of inflation and recession persist. J.P. Morgan’s chief economist warned there is a 40% chance of a U.S. recession in 2025 and emphasized that the administration’s actions risk undermining trust in U.S. governance and damaging the nation’s reputation as a stable destination for investment.
Trump defended his tariff policy by accusing countries like Ireland and others in the EU of taking advantage of the U.S., particularly through tax policies that attract American pharmaceutical companies. While meeting with Irish Prime Minister Micheal Martin, Trump insisted that his administration would not tolerate what he described as unfair treatment. He reiterated his stance on equal retaliation regardless of the specific rate or product targeted by foreign tariffs.
Experts, however, caution that the real cost of tariffs is often borne by American consumers and businesses, not foreign producers. A “Tariffs 101” analysis by the Wilson Center highlighted that tariffs, though intended to protect domestic industries or generate government revenue, typically make imported goods more expensive—leading to higher prices for U.S. buyers. While tariffs can serve as leverage in trade negotiations, their overuse may provoke an economic backlash, strain alliances, and contribute to global uncertainty.
The administration’s aggressive trade stance escalates tensions with allies, stirring market anxiety and prompting economists to warn about long-term consequences. While Trump frames these moves as steps toward fairness and national strength, the retaliatory responses and domestic fallout suggest a high-risk strategy with potentially costly results for the U.S. economy and its international relationships.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced a sweeping rollback of over two dozen environmental protections related to air and water pollution, calling it “the greatest day of deregulation in American history.” These changes affect tailpipe emissions, power plant pollutants (including mercury and coal ash), and waterway protections. Zeldin framed the move as a way to cut costs, revive auto jobs, boost fossil fuel production, and counter the "climate change religion."
As part of the overhaul, the EPA under Zeldin intends to rewrite the 2009 Endangerment Finding, which identified greenhouse gases as harmful to public health. The agency also plans to eliminate offices dedicated to environmental justice, which help low-income communities facing high pollution levels.
The changes align with Donald Trump's broader agenda to dismantle federal regulations, reduce agency staff (the EPA is set to lose 65% of its workforce), and favor fossil fuels over clean energy. Trump has also ordered federal agencies to repeal 10 regulations for every new one created.
Environmental advocates have sharply criticized the move, warning that it endangers public health and caters to polluting industries at the expense of communities.
The Trump administration has resumed the detention of immigrant families at a South Texas facility, ending a pause that began during the Biden administration. According to RAICES, a legal nonprofit that provides services to detained migrants, 14 families—including children as young as one year old—are currently being held at the Karnes County Immigration Processing Center, located southeast of San Antonio. These families originate from a diverse range of countries, including Colombia, Romania, Iran, Angola, Russia, Armenia, Turkey, and Brazil. Some have been in the U.S. for just a few weeks, while others have lived here for up to a decade. The facility, operated by private prison contractor Geo Group, previously housed adult detainees but recently shifted back to family detention.
This move marks a return to policies seen under both the Obama and Trump administrations, during which families were detained while their immigration cases proceeded. However, Trump’s prior approach to immigration was notably more aggressive, involving widespread curbs on asylum and the forced separation of children from their parents—actions that were widely condemned as inhumane. Under Biden, the practice of family detention was largely halted, though not officially abolished, and his administration briefly considered reviving it in 2023. The reintroduction of family detention appears to be expanding, as another private company, CoreCivic, recently entered a contract with ICE to detain families at a separate facility in Dilley, Texas, with a capacity for 2,400 individuals.
Advocates and medical professionals have voiced strong concerns about the well-being of children in detention. Dr. Alan Shapiro, co-founder of Terra Firma National, described serious mental health issues he observed in detained children during the first Trump administration, including behavioral regression, eating disorders, and even suicidal ideation. The return to detaining families—particularly in for-profit facilities—raises significant ethical and humanitarian concerns, especially given the documented psychological harm to children and the availability of more humane alternatives.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan is demanding the Trump administration provide sworn evidence by Monday to justify its termination of a $20 billion climate grant program, citing unsubstantiated claims of fraud, waste, and abuse. The funding, created under President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, was meant to support greenhouse gas reduction projects and aid disadvantaged communities.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), now led by Trump appointee Lee Zeldin, claimed the program didn’t align with its priorities but failed to offer evidence of wrongdoing. Climate advocates and Democrats argue the administration is unlawfully seizing funds that were properly appropriated and obligated.
The advocacy group Climate United Fund has filed a lawsuit seeking emergency court intervention to access Citibank's funds, warning that it may soon run out of money. Zeldin also revealed that the FBI and Justice Department are investigating the fund, raising alarm among Democrats who say there’s no legal basis for such probes.
Additionally, the EPA announced it would shut down its Office of Environmental Justice and Civil Rights, which focused on pollution impacts in minority and low-income communities. This has sparked criticism from environmental groups that say the move jeopardizes public health.
The Trump administration is shutting down a $1 billion federal program designed to preserve and improve affordable housing, placing tens of thousands of low-income units at risk. The Green and Resilient Retrofit Program, passed by Congress in 2022, provides grants and loans for energy-efficiency upgrades and critical repairs in older housing stock. In exchange, property owners commit to keeping units affordable for up to 25 years.
Though the money has already been awarded to projects benefiting at least 25,000 units, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is terminating the program following orders from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)—reportedly overseen by Elon Musk. HUD has not publicly commented, but internal documents and anonymous sources confirm the directive.
Funding is essential for projects like Smith Tower Apartments in Washington, where low-income seniors rely on these upgrades to keep their homes safe and livable. Many projects could collapse without the funding, as the grants often serve as a foundation for additional private investment. Housing advocates warn that the uncertainty could derail projects in 42 states, D.C., and Puerto Rico, worsening the affordable housing crisis and potentially increasing homelessness among vulnerable populations.
A federal judge has blocked parts of a recent executive order by President Donald Trump that sought to punish the Democratic-linked law firm Perkins Coie. The order would have barred the firm’s attorneys from accessing federal buildings or working with federal agencies, which the court ruled likely violates the First Amendment by targeting the firm for its political affiliations — a clear case of “viewpoint discrimination.”
Judge Beryl Howell, an Obama appointee, issued a temporary restraining order. She criticized it for being retaliatory and lacking due process. She compared Trump’s actions to a fictionalized justice system, calling them reminiscent of the Queen of Hearts’ arbitrary declarations in Alice in Wonderland.
Perkins Coie, known for its ties to Democratic politicians and its role in commissioning the Steele dossier, claims it is already facing client loss and reputational harm. Trump’s directive also stripped security clearances from some of the firm’s attorneys — a move not challenged in court due to the president’s broad authority.
DOJ official Chad Mizelle defended the order during the hearing, calling the firm’s concerns speculative and unproven. However, Howell expressed alarm that the executive order might intimidate other law firms from representing the administration's political adversaries.
This marks a broader trend in Trump’s second term of using executive authority to retaliate against perceived legal enemies. The court’s ruling serves as an early judicial check on what critics see as a pattern of politicized retribution targeting lawyers, former officials, and administration critics.
President Trump faced another legal defeat in his attempt to remove leaders from federal labor-related agencies. U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan ruled that Trump's firing of Susan Grundmann from the Federal Labor Relations Authority was illegal, violating federal law and congressional authority over independent agencies. Sooknanan emphasized constitutional checks and balances, rejecting the idea of unchecked presidential power. This decision follows similar rulings blocking Trump's efforts to dismiss members of other independent boards. The case may be appealed, potentially heading to the Supreme Court, which has shown some support for expanding presidential authority over executive agencies.