What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
February 14, 2025 Recap
Vice President J.D. Vance gave a speech at the Munich Security Conference riddled with contradictions and rhetorical oversimplifications. While Vance condemned European institutions for allegedly suppressing dissent and canceling elections, he ignored the Trump administration’s own history of undermining electoral integrity and attacking the press. His passionate defense of free speech seems selective, particularly given Trump’s repeated efforts to silence critics, pressure social media platforms, and criminalize political opponents. Furthermore, his remarks on Russia and Ukraine remain frustratingly vague—calling for a “reasonable settlement” without outlining what that entails, especially in light of Trump’s history of cozying up to Putin. The lack of substantive policy recommendations weakens his argument, making it more of a political declaration than a pragmatic security strategy.
Additionally, Vance’s alarmist rhetoric on mass migration oversimplifies a complex issue. While security concerns about immigration are legitimate, his framing of it as an existential crisis directly tied to terrorism ignores both the economic realities of migration and the nuanced security responses required to address it. Rather than offering concrete policy solutions, he leans on populist talking points that paint European leaders out of touch with their citizens. His criticism of European governments for limiting political discourse and suppressing dissent is valid in some respects. Still, he fails to acknowledge similar trends within the U.S., particularly the efforts by the Trump administration to manipulate information and intimidate opponents.
Ultimately, Vance’s speech serves more as a political manifesto than a serious contribution to the security discussions at the Munich Conference. While it effectively taps into nationalist and populist sentiments, it lacks the depth and policy substance necessary to address the challenges he raises. His portrayal of Europe as retreating from democratic values is compelling in its urgency, but the speech falls short in offering a constructive vision beyond broad ideological posturing.
German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius firmly rejected Vice President Vance’s characterization of European democracy at the Munich Security Conference, emphasizing that Europe remains free, inclusive, and resilient against extremism. He reaffirmed Germany’s commitment to Ukraine, insisting that peace must not embolden Russia, and urged Europe to take greater responsibility for its defense, reducing reliance on the U.S. Germany is increasing defense spending, strengthening European defense cooperation, and expanding NATO’s eastern presence, particularly in Lithuania. Pistorius stressed that Europe must remain united in securing democracy, warning that the coming decisions will shape its future.
President Trump issued an executive order establishing the National Energy Dominance Council (NEDC), which presents an ambitious vision for American energy policy. While it is framed as a means to bolster economic growth, national security, and domestic energy independence, the order raises several concerns regarding environmental sustainability, regulatory oversight, economic feasibility, and geopolitical strategy. The administration’s emphasis on rapid energy expansion and deregulation suggests a shift away from environmental protections and sustainable energy policies, favoring a traditional energy model prioritizing fossil fuel production over cleaner alternatives.
A major flaw in the order is its overemphasis on fossil fuels such as crude oil, natural gas, coal, and uranium, with little mention of renewables like wind and solar. While it includes biofuels and critical minerals, it primarily promotes an energy policy centered on deregulation, under the assumption that cutting government “red tape” will drive economic growth and job creation. However, the order does not provide detailed economic projections or consider the risks of overinvestment in fossil fuel infrastructure, which could become stranded assets as global markets shift toward cleaner energy sources. This approach neglects long-term energy security and sustainability by focusing on short-term economic gains.
Additionally, the executive order creates a direct link between energy policy and national security, making the Secretary of the Interior a standing member of the National Security Council (NSC). This move raises concerns about the militarization of energy policy and suggests a strategic push for resource-based geopolitical influence. While reducing dependence on foreign energy is a valid concern, the order does not acknowledge America’s reliance on imported rare earth minerals and advanced battery technologies, which are essential for future energy independence.
The order also risks creating regulatory conflicts at the state and tribal levels. Many states, such as California and those in the Northeast, have set aggressive clean energy mandates that could directly clash with the federal government’s push for fossil fuel expansion. Similarly, tribal lands have historically been the site of disputes over resource extraction, and the executive order does not specify how indigenous land rights will be considered in this new energy strategy. Without clear alignment with existing state and tribal policies, the federal government could face legal battles and enforcement challenges.
Another critical weakness of the order is its lack of public oversight and accountability. The National Energy Dominance Council is structured as an advisory body within the Executive Office of the President, meaning it has no clear obligation to report to Congress or seek independent review. While it calls for raising public awareness about energy dominance, this appears one-sided, favoring an industry-backed narrative over a balanced discourse that includes environmental, economic, and public health concerns. The absence of transparent mechanisms for oversight raises concerns about whether the Council will prioritize public interest over private-sector energy investments.
President Trump's executive order, “Keeping Education Accessible and Ending COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates in Schools,” presents itself as a measure to protect personal freedom, parental authority, and religious liberty, but it raises significant legal, ethical, and practical concerns. The order assumes that COVID-19 poses an "incredibly low risk" to children and young adults, a claim that, while partially supported by lower mortality rates, ignores broader public health implications such as community transmission, long COVID, and potential outbreaks in educational settings. The order politicizes a scientifically-driven issue by framing vaccine mandates as "coercion" rather than standard public health policy and undermines trust in medical expertise.
A key provision of the order is its attempt to cut off federal discretionary funds to schools and universities that enforce vaccine mandates. While the executive branch has some control over federal funding, this sweeping restriction could face legal challenges for overstepping federal jurisdiction in what is traditionally a state and local policy matter. Schools have long required vaccinations for diseases like measles and polio, making this selective targeting of COVID-19 vaccines inconsistent with established public health policies. Additionally, the order asserts that vaccine mandates "usurp parental authority" and "burden students of many faiths," yet it provides no concrete evidence of how these mandates uniquely infringe on religious freedoms beyond what existing medical and religious exemptions already allow. Historically, public health measures have balanced individual rights against the need for broader societal protections—this order fails to acknowledge that precedent.
Furthermore, while the order calls for guidelines and compliance measures, it lacks a clear enforcement framework. The directive for the Secretary of Education to compile lists of "non-compliant" schools is vague and impractical, leaving the actual implementation process open-ended and subject to significant legal disputes. Additionally, the order contradicts long-standing Supreme Court decisions, such as Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) and Zucht v. King (1922), which have upheld states' rights to enforce vaccination requirements for public health reasons. By labeling these mandates an "intolerable infringement on personal freedom," the order sets a precedent that could challenge the legitimacy of all vaccine requirements in schools, not just those for COVID-19.
Ultimately, this executive order functions more as a political statement than a substantive policy directive. While it appeals to a base that opposes COVID-19 vaccine mandates, it lacks a strong legal foundation, disregards public health concerns, and provides no clear enforcement mechanism. Without a viable path for implementation, the order serves more as a symbolic stance than an actionable measure with measurable outcomes.
After reaching an agreement with the National Treasury Employees Union, the Trump administration agreed to temporarily halt layoffs and other actions that could effectively shut down the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The decision, approved by U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, prevents the administration from reducing the CFPB’s workforce or interfering with its operations for at least 17 days. A hearing to determine a longer-term ruling is set for March 3.
This agreement follows concerns that CFPB was preparing to issue a reduction in force (RIF) affecting 95% of its staff. Acting CFPB Chief Russ Vought had already fired all probationary employees, ceased agency operations, and attempted to cut its funding—moves now paused due to legal challenges. Additionally, the administration agreed not to transfer CFPB funds or delete agency records.
A similar federal court order also restrained the administration’s efforts to shut down the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), preventing employee dismissals and requiring staff abroad to remain in place until at least Feb. 21.
The Trump administration conducted mass firings across the federal government, dismissing thousands of probationary employees with less than two years on the job. These cuts affected major agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which oversees the U.S. nuclear arsenal.
The move aligns significantly with Trump's and tech billionaire Elon Musk's efforts to downsize the federal government. The firings were swift, with some employees given only two hours to vacate their workplaces. More than 3,000 employees at the U.S. Forest Service and over 1,000 at the Department of Veterans Affairs were among those terminated.
The administration justified the mass terminations by citing the probationary period as an extension of the job application process rather than guaranteed employment. Critics, including Democrats, labor unions, and progressive organizations, argue that the firings are unconstitutional and violate Congress’s authority over federal spending. Over 60 lawsuits have already been filed challenging the administration’s actions.
Musk, who leads the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), dismissed concerns, making light of the situation on social media, comparing the government to a "broken computer" that needed restarting.
The administration has also introduced a “deferred resignation” program, offering workers continued pay for a few months if they agree to leave later. So far, 75,000 employees have accepted this offer. The broader goal is to reduce the federal workforce by up to 10%.
While federal employee compensation accounts for 6.6% of the budget, mass firings are unlikely to impact the deficit significantly. However, many terminated employees expressed concerns over the long-term effects on national security and government efficiency. Some agencies, such as Housing and Urban Development (HUD), anticipate even deeper workforce reductions of up to 50%.
Trump and Musk are scheduled to discuss these changes in a Tuesday joint interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity.
The White House barred an Associated Press (AP) reporter and photographer from traveling on Air Force One with President Trump due to a dispute over the naming of the Gulf of Mexico. The administration insists on calling it the “Gulf of America,” while AP continues to use its traditional name. This move escalates tensions between the White House and the press, following AP’s exclusion from other events earlier in the week.
Journalists view the action as a First Amendment violation, arguing it is an attempt to control press coverage. The White House counters that AP has no guaranteed right to attend events with limited space, particularly given what it calls the outlet’s “commitment to misinformation.” AP denies this claim, emphasizing press freedom as a fundamental American value.
Other major news outlets, including The New York Times and The Washington Post, have sided with AP, while Fox News has adopted the White House’s preferred name. The White House Correspondents Association condemned the administration’s actions, and behind-the-scenes negotiations continue. Meanwhile, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt openly stated that AP was intentionally excluded.
Sources: Associated Press, CBS News