What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
May 15, 2025 Recap
Donald Trump’s remarks at the Doha business roundtable were a sprawling, unstructured monologue that veered wildly between topics, often without coherence or logical transitions. What was ostensibly a high-level economic forum devolved into a rambling performance more focused on self-congratulation, personal anecdotes, and aggressive rhetoric than on substantive policy or diplomacy. The speech began with Trump praising the economic “hotness” of the United States, claiming the country had undergone a rapid turnaround under his leadership. He offered inflated figures, such as a purported $10 trillion in investment commitments over two months, without providing any detail, context, or verification. These economic boasts were paired with offhand comments about corporate partners like Boeing and General Electric, including exaggerated praise and casual jokes about switching airplane engines on his personal aircraft.
Trump’s handling of foreign policy topics was marked by recklessness and a transactional mindset. He casually announced the lifting of sanctions on Syria, admitting he had been unaware of how long they had been in place, and justified the move on the basis of his personal liking for Syria’s new leader, described vaguely as a man with a “strong past.” On Yemen, he suggested the Houthis had been asked to stop firing and implied the U.S. had somehow brought them into compliance, while glossing over the complex humanitarian and geopolitical dimensions of the conflict. His commentary on Iran alternated between threatening violence and praising the Amir of Qatar for “fighting for Iran,” creating a contradictory narrative that undercut any coherent diplomatic position. Trump framed the potential confrontation with Iran in terms of “two steps”—one diplomatic, one violent—failing to elaborate on strategy or legal rationale.
The speech was also filled with militaristic glorification, treating arms deals and advanced weapons systems as markers of national prestige. He celebrated fighter jet and drone technology while describing warfare in graphic, almost flippant terms. The passage on drones included a bizarre anecdote comparing Iranian $40,000 drones to a $41 million American prototype, followed by a graphic description of dismembered bodies on the Ukrainian battlefield. This jarring tonal shift highlighted the speech’s broader lack of decorum and sensitivity, especially when dealing with human suffering and war.
Trump also used the occasion to attack domestic political opponents, mocking Pete Buttigieg for bicycling to work, accusing the Biden administration of incompetence, and repeating debunked claims of election fraud. These attacks were punctuated by irrelevant tangents, such as a detailed digression on Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy’s former career as a competitive lumberjack, which further undermined the event’s diplomatic and economic significance.
In its conclusion, the speech returned to Trump’s recurring themes of “America First,” a perceived international resurgence under his leadership, and the strength of his personal relationships with Gulf leaders. He described the trip as “historic,” claiming trillions in new investment and asserting that the United States had gone from being a global “laughingstock” to the “hottest country in the world.” Despite occasional praise for allies and vague overtures toward peace in Ukraine and Iran, the speech ultimately projected an image of foreign policy as a series of personal deals and military threats, rather than the product of strategic planning or collaborative diplomacy.
Taken as a whole, the roundtable remarks were unfocused, contradictory, and deeply inappropriate for a forum of this nature. What could have been an opportunity to showcase U.S. economic strength and global partnerships became a stream-of-consciousness performance riddled with hyperbole, factual distortions, and a lack of diplomatic seriousness. The event highlighted Trump’s improvisational style and the risks of conducting international relations without a coherent framework, consistent message, or grounding in reality.
During his press gaggle aboard Air Force One en route to Abu Dhabi, Donald Trump delivered a stream-of-consciousness monologue that showcased his improvisational speaking style, self-congratulatory tone, and oversimplified worldview. He began by calling the trip “amazing” and claimed, without evidence, that it had resulted in “trillions of dollars of investment” for the United States. He framed his engagements in Saudi Arabia and Qatar as redemptive gestures toward allies who had supposedly been “abandoned” by previous U.S. administrations. Trump then veered into a bizarre anecdote about shaking hands with “big people” who were “starving for love,” contrasting this with a past president’s “fist pump” as symbolic of failed diplomacy. These comments reduced international relations to emotional theatrics and superficial gestures, trivializing the seriousness of global engagement.
Trump boasted of a Boeing order for 160 aircraft, calling it the “biggest order in the history of aviation,” another unverified superlative emblematic of his rhetorical style. He then pivoted abruptly to concerns about China, claiming the UAE had feared being “captured by China from the standpoint of trade,” and declared, without elaboration, that “that’s not going to happen anymore.” The lack of supporting details or policy mechanisms behind such statements rendered them more promotional than presidential. When asked about Russia’s delegation to Turkey, Trump dismissed the topic entirely, pivoting back to his financial claims and asserting, “nothing’s going to happen until Putin and I get together.” This personalization of diplomacy suggests a worldview where global events revolve around his individual presence rather than institutional strategy.
Overall, the gaggle revealed Trump’s tendency to frame diplomacy as a stage for personal performance. He substituted boastful generalizations for concrete policy explanations, and his evasive response to a legitimate foreign policy question further demonstrated his disdain for press accountability. What could have been a moment to reinforce the credibility of U.S. diplomacy instead devolved into a disjointed and self-indulgent monologue that prioritized ego over substance.
Vice President JD Vance’s remarks at the National Peace Officers’ Memorial Service aimed to honor the lives and sacrifices of fallen law enforcement officers, but the speech struggled under the weight of conflicting tones, structural issues, and excessive politicization. The address began with appropriate acknowledgments and moments of genuine empathy, particularly when Vance addressed grieving families and praised the courage of specific officers such as David Lee, Fernando Escada, and Larry Henderson. These tributes grounded the speech in real human loss and offered a sense of emotional sincerity. However, these powerful moments were repeatedly undermined by abrupt transitions into political rhetoric and policy advocacy.
The speech lacked cohesion, often jumping from solemn remembrance to campaign-style language without warning. Rather than serving as a unifying eulogy, the address frequently veered into ideological territory. Vance’s aggressive framing—characterizing political opponents as enablers of chaos, denouncing “far-left prosecutors,” “Antifa,” and “radical experiments,” and referring to Donald Trump as “the murder weapon” used to kill the defund-the-police movement—was jarring and inappropriate for the occasion. This politicization risked alienating portions of the audience and detracted from the intended solemnity.
In terms of delivery and tone, the speech also suffered from awkward phrasing and an overuse of confrontational language such as “fight,” “zero tolerance,” and “murder.” While the rhetoric was clearly designed to project strength and conviction, it often came across as more combative than consoling. The decision to blend memorialization with aggressive policy posturing—particularly on immigration, capital punishment, and federal policing initiatives—blurred the line between tribute and stump speech.
Ultimately, Vance missed the opportunity to offer a unifying and reflective message. His address was overlong, inconsistently structured, and marred by partisanship. A more disciplined, compassionate, and apolitical speech would have better served the memory of the fallen and the families who gathered to mourn them.
The Trump administration has accused several state and nonprofit organizations of potentially "harboring" or "smuggling" migrants, despite these groups providing humanitarian aid using federal funds to individuals who had already been processed and released by immigration authorities. In response, FEMA abruptly froze reimbursements from its Shelter and Services Program (SSP), which had been created specifically to support such work. Organizations like The Campaign Against Hunger in New York, which was recruited by the Biden administration to feed migrants, have now lost access to expected funds and face operational crises.
FEMA sent threatening letters to grantees demanding detailed information about the migrants they served and required attestations that no crimes had been committed, despite offering no evidence of wrongdoing. Critics, including legal experts and nonprofit leaders, say this is politically motivated intimidation and mirrors tactics used by Texas officials to criminalize immigration-related aid.
The result has been halted services, growing food insecurity, and accusations of harassment. FEMA and DHS defended the move by claiming the aid supported illegal immigration and citing unproven links to gangs. Meanwhile, other grant recipients, including city governments and Catholic Charities, have attempted to comply or disengaged entirely, while the Trump administration considers repurposing funds for immigration enforcement.
The Trump administration is implementing a new policy to purge transgender service members from the U.S. military. Military commanders are being instructed to identify troops with gender dysphoria and initiate medical assessments that could lead to their discharge. Troops have until June 6 (active duty) or July 7 (Guard and Reserve) to voluntarily come forward, with financial incentives offered for those who do.
While initial plans included combing through medical records, the Defense Department will now rely primarily on annual health assessments, which will include new questions about gender dysphoria. Commanders can expedite these checks, and those known to have gender dysphoria may be subject to targeted medical record reviews.
Roughly 4,240 troops have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, though the actual number may be higher. So far, about 1,000 have self-identified and begun the separation process. The new policy does not grandfather in those currently serving and allows only narrow exceptions.
This move follows a Supreme Court decision allowing the administration to enforce the ban while legal challenges proceed. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, a vocal opponent of what he calls “wokeness” in the military, has tied the policy to a broader ideological purge.
Tell us what you really think.