What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
February 24, 2025 Recap
The press conference between former President Donald Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron held at the White House highlighted a mixture of diplomatic posturing, vague policy assertions, and, at times, a lack of substantive clarity on pressing global issues. One of the most significant topics was the ongoing war in Ukraine. While both leaders emphasized the need for peace, Trump’s approach appeared overly simplistic. He claimed that the war would not have happened under his leadership but failed to provide a concrete plan for resolving the conflict. His assertion that a deal was “very close” and that European troops could act as “peacekeepers” lacked details on what such an agreement would entail. Additionally, his mention of a potential “mineral deal” with Ukraine as part of a settlement raised concerns about whether he viewed Ukraine’s natural resources as a bargaining tool rather than prioritizing its sovereignty and security. Macron, in contrast, was more measured, reinforcing Europe’s commitment to Ukraine while carefully avoiding premature declarations of a resolution.
Trump’s stance on NATO remained ambiguous. While initially describing NATO as beneficial, he also criticized its financial burden on the U.S., boasting about having pressured allies to increase their contributions during his first term. However, he did not provide a clear vision of how he intended to engage with the alliance moving forward. Macron, on the other hand, strongly emphasized Europe’s security commitments and positioned the continent as a more independent and proactive global player. This contrast in approach underscored Trump’s transactional perspective on alliances compared to Macron’s more structured diplomatic approach.
Economic negotiations also played a key role in the discussion, with Trump repeatedly referencing potential deals with Ukraine and Russia, particularly rare earth minerals. His framing of these negotiations suggested a prioritization of financial gain over long-term strategic stability. In contrast, Macron focused more on security and legal considerations, particularly regarding the handling of frozen Russian assets. The French president carefully distinguished between using the proceeds of frozen assets and outright seizing them, reflecting a nuanced legal perspective. Trump, however, appeared impatient with such distinctions, suggesting a more transactional view of international economic policies.
Throughout the press conference, Trump frequently digressed into unrelated topics, including a personal anecdote about a dinner at the Eiffel Tower and a joking remark about the French language. His lengthy, meandering responses diluted the clarity of his policy positions, making it difficult to extract coherent strategies. His repeated assertions that the war in Ukraine would have been avoided under his leadership served more as political rhetoric than substantive policy analysis. These moments further highlighted the difference in communication styles between the two leaders, with Macron maintaining a focused and structured approach.
The diplomatic dynamic between the two leaders was mixed. While Trump expressed admiration for Macron and France, his praise was often interwoven with casual remarks that sometimes felt disconnected from the weighty geopolitical discussions at hand. Macron, by contrast, kept the conversation centered on security, European coordination, and the role of international law. His composed and pragmatic demeanor starkly contrasted with Trump’s more erratic and transactional style.
The press conference underscored a fundamental contrast in diplomatic approaches. Macron presented a structured, pragmatic European perspective, while Trump delivered an erratic, transactional, and, at times, oversimplified narrative. His emphasis on economic negotiations and his casual attitude toward diplomacy raised concerns about the depth of his strategic engagement in global affairs. While both leaders stressed the importance of peace, only Macron articulated a framework grounded in alliances and legal considerations, leaving Trump’s statements feeling more like political soundbites than a concrete roadmap for international stability.
President Trump backed Elon Musk’s directive requiring federal employees to report their recent accomplishments or risk termination, though the Office of Personnel Management later clarified compliance was voluntary. This move led to confusion, legal challenges, and protests among federal employees, with some agencies advising staff not to respond due to security concerns.
Musk, overseeing Trump’s federal government overhaul, claimed mass fraud within the government and threatened layoffs for non-compliance, though no evidence was provided. The conflicting guidance from different government agencies resulted in inconsistent responses, with some agencies complying while others resisted.
A lawsuit backed by unions and advocacy groups argues that Musk’s directive amounts to employment fraud. The Office of Special Counsel warned that some firings may be illegal, and legal battles are ongoing regarding the dismissal of watchdog leader Hampton Dellinger.
Key government departments, including Justice, Homeland Security, and the Pentagon, refused to comply, citing security concerns. Despite resistance, thousands of federal employees have already been fired or forced to resign, but no official count is available. Meanwhile, Trump and Musk continue pushing for aggressive downsizing despite growing legal and political opposition.
A federal judge, Trevor McFadden, declined to issue a temporary restraining order requested by The Associated Press (AP) in its lawsuit against the Trump administration over access restrictions. The AP alleged that the administration violated its First Amendment rights by barring its reporters from the Oval Office and Air Force One because the outlet refused to adopt the term “Gulf of America” instead of the Gulf of Mexico.
The dispute stems from President Donald Trump’s executive order renaming the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America.” The AP chose to maintain the original name while acknowledging the change. Trump defended barring AP reporters, stating they would remain excluded until they adopted the new terminology, while also criticizing the outlet’s overall coverage of him and the Republican Party.
Judge McFadden’s decision to deny the Associated Press (AP) a temporary restraining order against the Trump administration raises significant concerns about press freedom and the judiciary’s role in protecting First Amendment rights. By dismissing the urgency of the AP’s request, McFadden effectively grants the White House unchecked authority to exclude journalists based on their editorial choices. This approach dangerously undermines the independence of the press.
The case itself highlights an alarming precedent: a sitting president issuing an executive order renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the “Gulf of America” and then punishing a major news outlet for refusing to comply with this linguistic revision. The AP’s refusal to adopt the new terminology is not an act of defiance but rather an adherence to journalistic integrity and factual reporting. Yet, instead of recognizing the chilling effect of the administration’s retaliation, McFadden justified his ruling with procedural arguments, including the AP’s brief delay in filing suit—an arbitrary standard that overlooks the broader constitutional stakes.
McFadden’s reluctance to intervene “hastily” in executive affairs suggests a dangerous deference to presidential power at the expense of press rights. If a government can dictate which journalists gain access based on ideological conformity, then freedom of the press becomes conditional—a privilege granted at the administration’s discretion rather than a foundational democratic principle.
The Trump Administration released a statement in response to Judge McFadden’s ruling regarding the Associated Press that attempts to frame the Trump White House’s actions as both justified and beneficial to press freedom, but it ultimately relies on a misleading and contradictory argument.
First, the assertion that access to the President in certain settings is a “privilege” rather than a legal right is technically accurate but dismisses the broader principle of press freedom. While individual reporters do not have an absolute right to specific venues like the Oval Office or Air Force One, the statement ignores the expectation that a free press should have reasonable access to elected leaders without undue partisan interference.
Second, the claim that the administration is holding the "Fake News accountable" reveals an overtly partisan stance that undermines the supposed neutrality of the White House’s press policies. By labeling certain media organizations as purveyors of "lies," the statement suggests that access is being granted selectively based on perceived loyalty rather than journalistic integrity.
Finally, the declaration that this is the "most transparent Administration in history" is demonstrably false. The Trump administration frequently clashed with the press, held fewer formal press briefings than its predecessors, and was known for restricting access to critical outlets. Transparency is measured by consistent engagement with all media, not just by granting access to favored reporters.
The statement attempts to spin a restrictive press policy as a defense of fairness and accountability but ultimately reveals an approach that prioritizes control over transparency.
The Trump administration has sought to freeze or terminate federal funding that conflicts with its policy priorities, initially relying on executive orders (E.O.s) before shifting to agency-specific justifications after facing legal challenges. On Inauguration Day, January 20, 2025, E.O.s directed agencies to halt disbursements from the Inflation Reduction Act and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and paused foreign aid spending. A week later, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued M-25-13, expanding the freeze to all federal financial assistance, prompting lawsuits from states and nonprofits. A Washington, D.C. district court quickly blocked the OMB memo, leading to its rescission, though the administration maintained that funding suspensions under the E.O.s remained in effect. Subsequent court rulings further restricted agency authority to pause funding based on E.O.s, forcing the administration to pivot to arguing that agencies had independent statutory and regulatory authority to halt funds.
Following these setbacks, the administration claimed that ongoing freezes resulted from agency-specific decisions based on the terms and conditions of grants and contracts. A D.C. court ruled that agencies could enforce existing contract terms but could not terminate funding based solely on policy shifts. The administration also argued that unless appropriations laws explicitly mandated disbursement to specific entities on fixed timelines, agencies retained discretion to delay funding. This strategy relied on federal regulations such as the Uniform Grants Guidance (UGG) and Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), but their application to broad funding freezes remains legally questionable.
The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (ICA) limits the president’s ability to defer or rescind funds appropriated by Congress, prohibiting delays based on policy changes. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has consistently ruled that deferrals must meet strict criteria, none of which include executive policy preferences. If agencies halt spending without re-obligating funds for their intended purpose, such actions could be deemed illegal deferrals or rescissions under the ICA. Courts will likely continue evaluating whether these funding suspensions violate statutory appropriations requirements, setting key precedents for executive control over federal spending.
The Trump administration has taken steps to halt the disbursement of funds from the $20 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) by freezing bank accounts belonging to nonprofit grant recipients. This move, led by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, follows allegations of fraud and waste despite the program being legally established under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022. The GGRF was designed to finance climate-friendly projects, particularly in low-income and disadvantaged communities. Under the Biden administration, eight nonprofit institutions were selected to distribute the funds, with Citibank as the financial agent responsible for holding and transferring the money. These nonprofits were required to adhere to strict financial regulations and oversight measures before allocating the funds.
Following pressure from the Trump administration, Citibank froze the accounts of at least three nonprofits, leaving them unable to access critical funds needed for their operations. One grantee reported that their account was initially frozen for a day, briefly reopened, and then frozen again last week. These organizations have sought explanations from Citibank and the EPA, but as of Monday, they have received no response. Without access to their allocated funds, the nonprofits are unable to continue their operations, delaying or halting climate projects intended to reduce emissions and lower energy costs for communities in need.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has characterized the program as an example of wasteful government spending, arguing that the funds were rushed out irresponsibly. He has stated his intention to claw back the money and involve the Justice Department in an investigation. In a video statement, Zeldin compared the program to "gold bars tossed off the Titanic," suggesting that the Biden administration recklessly distributed the funds. He insists that the EPA should reassume control and review every dollar spent to determine if any misuse has occurred.
However, the legality of freezing the funds is highly questionable. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) explicitly authorized the program, meaning the EPA does not have the authority to recall the funds after they have been distributed. Furthermore, a federal judge, John McConnell, issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) mandating that the funds continue to be disbursed while litigation is pending. Legal experts argue that the EPA’s actions violate existing federal contracts, potentially exposing the government to lawsuits. Adding to the controversy, Justice Department prosecutor Denise Cheung resigned last week, reportedly after being pressured to investigate the program and enforce the funding freeze.
The EPA’s actions have drawn sharp criticism from Democratic lawmakers and legal advocates. A group of Democratic senators, led by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), sent a letter to Zeldin urging him to respect congressional spending authority and unfreeze the funds. The letter warns that the freeze jeopardizes thousands of jobs and community projects and is based on unsubstantiated claims of fraud. Jillian Blanchard, Vice President of Climate Change and Environmental Justice at Lawyers for Good Government, argued that the program was meticulously designed to prevent fraud and underwent rigorous vetting by the Treasury, the EPA, and legal experts. She points out that there are clear legal mechanisms for addressing any fraud concerns, yet the EPA has not provided any concrete evidence to justify its actions.
The freeze is already having far-reaching economic consequences. Many affected nonprofits planned to use the funds to provide low-interest loans to communities and businesses for clean energy projects. The delay has stalled crucial initiatives such as climate resilience centers, renewable energy programs, and energy cost reduction efforts. Contractors and businesses tied to these projects are already experiencing layoffs and financial strain. If the funds remain frozen, nonprofits may shut down entirely, and legal battles to recover funds could take years, further delaying climate action and harming the clean energy sector.
Looking ahead, the situation is likely to escalate. Nonprofits may file lawsuits against the EPA, arguing that the agency is breaching its contractual obligations by withholding funds. Congressional oversight may intensify, with lawmakers investigating whether the EPA is exceeding its authority. Additionally, Republican lawmakers may attempt to repeal provisions of the IRA that fund the program. However, how such an effort would play out if the funds were no longer under government control remains unclear. Meanwhile, as long as the funds are frozen, contractors, nonprofits, and communities reliant on the program will continue to suffer.
At its core, freezing the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund highlights a broader struggle over executive power, congressional funding authority, and environmental policy. The lack of clear evidence of fraud, the court order requiring disbursement, and the program’s established legal foundation make the freeze highly controversial. If the issue is not resolved soon, legal action, economic fallout, and political tensions will likely escalate, further complicating the already contentious debate over climate policy in the United States.
Sources: The Hill, Living On Earth
The United States, in a significant departure from its previous policy, voted alongside Russia against a UN General Assembly resolution condemning Russia’s war on Ukraine. This move put the U.S. at odds with its European allies and marked a major shift in its stance on the conflict.
The General Assembly resolution, supported by Ukraine and European nations, condemned Russia’s full-scale invasion, called for de-escalation, and demanded Russia’s immediate withdrawal from Ukrainian territory. It passed with 93 votes in favor.
Instead of supporting this resolution, the U.S. introduced a rival measure that avoided labeling Russia as the aggressor and did not reaffirm Ukraine’s territorial integrity. It focused instead on calling for an end to the conflict and a lasting peace. A similar version was passed in the UN Security Council with 10 votes in favor, including Russia’s, while five European members abstained.
European diplomats strongly criticized the U.S. shift. French and British UN representatives emphasized that peace must acknowledge Russia's role as the aggressor and uphold international law. They warned that failing to hold Russia accountable could undermine global security.
The U.S. abstained from voting on its own General Assembly resolution after amendments were added to reinforce language against Russia and reaffirm Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Meanwhile, European leaders, including French President Emmanuel Macron, engaged with President Trump to address the shift in U.S. policy.
A federal judge has temporarily blocked the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a downsizing team created by President Donald Trump and led by Elon Musk, from accessing sensitive data from the U.S. Education Department and the Office of Personnel Management.
The ruling, issued by U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman in Maryland, came in response to a lawsuit from labor unions who argued that the agencies unlawfully granted DOGE access to personal data, violating the Privacy Act of 1974. The data included Social Security numbers, home addresses, income, and citizenship status of federal employees and student aid recipients.
The Trump administration contended that blocking access would hinder its government reform efforts, but the judge ruled that DOGE affiliates lacked a legitimate need for the information. This decision follows other legal challenges against DOGE, including a separate ruling in New York that prevented access to Treasury Department systems. The White House has not commented on the decision.
Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro announced that the Trump administration has released over $2 billion in federal aid that was previously frozen or under review. Shapiro had sued the administration on February 13, arguing that the withholding of funds was illegal and unconstitutional. Federal courts had already rejected the administration’s broader pause on funding and questioned whether it was disregarding court orders.
Shapiro also engaged in discussions with senior Trump administration officials in Washington, D.C., pressing for the release of funds. While the U.S. attorney’s office in Philadelphia did not comment, Trump administration lawyers in Rhode Island defended the funding freeze as a temporary pause for review and argued that the case was moot after the Office of Management and Budget rescinded its memo freezing grants and loans, though the Trump Administration maintains the funding suspensions under the E.O.s remain in effect despite the OMB’s actions.
The withheld funds were part of key laws passed under former President Joe Biden, including the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act and the 2021 infrastructure law. The lawsuit claimed the freeze affected programs for energy efficiency, abandoned gas well plugging, mine land cleanup, water and sewer system improvements, and emissions reductions.
The lawsuit named five federal agencies, including the Office of Management and Budget, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Departments of Interior, Transportation, and Energy. Only the Department of Energy has responded, stating it was complying with court orders but not confirming if it had released the funds.