What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
Weekend Recap: February 8-9, 2025
Russell Vought, acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), ordered agency staff to halt all work in an email sent Saturday night. He stated that all supervision, investigations, and regulatory actions should stop unless he expressly approved or required by law.
The move follows Vought's announcement that he cut off new funding to the CFPB, calling its $711.6 million budget "excessive" and stating that the agency's funding mechanism has contributed to its "unaccountability." The decision aligns with broader efforts by Trump-aligned figures, including Elon Musk, to scale down the federal government. Musk posted “CFPB RIP” on X.
Democrats, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, condemned the decision, warning that it weakens consumer protections and benefits big banks and corporations. Schumer argued it paves the way for "a Golden Age of predatory lending." Critics also contend that Vought lacks the authority to dismantle the CFPB, which Congress established in response to the 2008 financial crisis. Sen. Chris Van Hollen vowed to fight for the agency’s continued operation.
Vought, who was recently confirmed to lead the Office of Management and Budget, previously served as vice president of Heritage Action for America and was involved in drafting Project 2025, a policy blueprint for a potential second Trump term.
President Trump issued a proclamation claiming February 9 as “Gulf Of America Day, 2025. This proclamation exemplifies nationalistic rebranding with little substantive justification. The renaming of the Gulf of Mexico to the "Gulf of America" is framed as a restoration of American greatness, yet it lacks historical, legal, or practical reasoning beyond an appeal to patriotism. The assertion that the Gulf has been an “indelible part of America” ignores its shared history and significance to Mexico and Cuba, whose territorial waters also form part of it. The unilateral renaming disregards diplomatic norms and risks straining international relations by implying American ownership over a body of water historically recognized as a shared regional resource.
Legally, the cited executive order (EO 14172) invokes statutes related to domestic geographic naming but does not grant authority to alter internationally recognized designations. Without global recognition, this effort appears more symbolic than substantive. The Gulf of Mexico has borne its name for centuries, rooted in Spanish colonial history, and the proclamation offers no compelling reason for a change beyond vague nationalistic rhetoric.
Additionally, "Gulf of America Day" serves no apparent purpose beyond reinforcing a political narrative, urging public officials and citizens to commemorate an arbitrary renaming. This performative gesture prioritizes symbolism over practical governance, offering no economic, cultural, or somatic benefits. Instead of fostering unity, it risks alienating allies and distorting historical and geopolitical realities in favor of an exclusionary nationalist agenda.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s interview with Dana Bash on CNN’s State of the Union raised significant concerns about the Trump administration’s handling of immigration, government oversight, and disaster relief. Noem defended the decision to detain migrants at Guantanamo Bay, a move that is unprecedented for individuals already on U.S. soil. While she framed this as necessary to remove “the worst of the worst” criminals, the justification lacked transparency. She did not provide concrete data on the number of violent offenders being detained nor clarify whether non-violent migrants—such as those with minor infractions or procedural immigration violations—might also be held at the controversial facility. The expansion of tent detention centers, with a capacity of up to 30,000 people, suggests that the administration is preparing for large-scale detainment beyond just violent criminals, raising human rights and legal concerns.
Noem also failed to address the potential for indefinite detention, admitting that deportation timelines depend on negotiations with home countries, many of which have refused to take back deportees in the past. This raises the troubling possibility that some individuals could be held indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay without clear legal recourse, echoing past criticisms of the site’s use for terrorism suspects. Her insistence that the administration has the legal authority to use the facility for migrant detentions was confidently stated but without reference to specific legal statutes or precedents.
Beyond immigration, Noem advocated eliminating FEMA, arguing that disaster relief should be left to state and local governments. While decentralization of federal aid may be a valid debate, her argument failed to acknowledge FEMA’s critical role in responding to large-scale disasters that exceed state capabilities. Instead, her remarks suggested a sweeping dismantling of federal emergency response infrastructure without a clear replacement plan. This approach is concerning, particularly in light of the increasing frequency and severity of natural disasters nationwide.
Perhaps the most alarming revelation was Noem’s admission that Elon Musk has access to FEMA’s disaster data, which includes sensitive personal information about U.S. citizens. When pressed, she failed to justify why a private individual should have such access, particularly one with no official government position. Her assertion that Musk is conducting an “audit” of government inefficiencies raises ethical and privacy concerns, as it appears to bypass normal oversight mechanisms. The implications of a private billionaire's access to government databases without transparency or accountability are deeply troubling.
Additionally, Noem’s push to shrink the Department of Homeland Security workforce raises questions about the administration’s ability to manage national security threats effectively. While reducing bureaucracy is often a popular political talking point, she did not provide any specifics on which roles should be cut or how this would improve security operations. Her broad-stroke argument that DHS employees who are “not fulfilling their mission” should be removed lacks nuance. It fails to address how personnel reductions might impact immigration enforcement, cyber security, or counterterrorism efforts.
Noem’s remarks reflect a radical restructuring of immigration policy, government oversight, and federal disaster response, but they do not include clear plans for legal justification, logistical feasibility, or ethical safeguards.
National Security Advisor Michael Waltz spoke with Kristen Welker on NBC’s Meet The Press was marked by evasive answers, contradictions, and a lack of substantive policy clarity. While he confidently delivered the administration’s talking points, his responses often deflected from the core issues, failed to provide concrete evidence for his claims, and left many concerns unaddressed. His defense of the administration’s sweeping cuts to USAID was particularly weak, as he simultaneously argued that foreign aid is critical for national security while justifying broad reductions without a thorough review process. His assertion that USAID funds are misused lacked statistical backing, and reports of halted operations and legal challenges to the cuts undermined his claim that essential programs remain funded. Rather than addressing the administration’s failure to conduct a targeted evaluation, he vaguely referenced an ongoing “waiver process,” which did little to dispel concerns about the hasty and poorly executed policy.
Waltz also struggled to defend Elon Musk’s involvement in advising the Pentagon on budget cuts. He praised Musk’s business acumen while sidestepping concerns about conflicts of interest given that Musk’s companies receive billions in defense contracts. His vague assurance that safeguards were in place failed to address the fundamental ethical issue of allowing a private businessman with financial stakes in defense contracts to influence budgetary decisions. Similarly, Waltz failed to provide a coherent strategy when asked about a post-war governance plan for Gaza. While he dismissed traditional aid efforts as ineffective, he did not articulate a viable alternative beyond claiming that Trump’s reputation as a “builder and dealmaker” had initiated regional discussions. His remarks were heavy on rhetoric but offered little concrete diplomatic or humanitarian strategy.
One of the most alarming interview moments came when Waltz was pressed on reports that Trump had floated the idea of annexing Canada. Instead of issuing a straightforward denial, he deflected by suggesting that many Canadians might welcome U.S. governance due to dissatisfaction with liberal policies. This response was inflammatory and dismissed the sovereignty of a key U.S. ally. His unwillingness to directly refute the claim raises questions about the seriousness with which such discussions were entertained within the administration. Equally concerning was his ambiguous response regarding Trump’s interactions with Vladimir Putin. Waltz refused to confirm or deny reports of ongoing direct conversations, instead stating that "sensitive discussions" were taking place. This lack of transparency only fuels speculation about Trump’s relationship with Russia and the potential implications for U.S. foreign policy. Additionally, his assertion that Trump is uniquely positioned to “end the war” in Ukraine lacked any substantiation, especially given the administration’s apparent willingness to reduce aid to Kyiv.
Waltz’s interview exemplified a pattern of deflection, vague assurances, and a reluctance to engage in direct accountability. His justifications for major policy decisions, such as aid cuts and Musk’s Pentagon role, were riddled with contradictions. Though his delivery was assertive, his lack of clear answers and evasive rhetoric did little to inspire confidence in the administration’s foreign policy direction.
President Trump's interview with Fox News host Bret Baier before the Super Bowl highlighted his characteristic rhetorical style. However, the discussion exposed key weaknesses in his approach, including a lack of substantive detail, contradictions, and unverified claims. While Trump touched on a range of policy issues—including border security, government efficiency, tariffs, and transgender participation in sports—his responses were largely vague and lacked depth. He frequently resorted to broad generalizations, calling government spending a “scam” and alleging widespread fraud without providing concrete evidence. His assertion that Elon Musk’s oversight of government departments would uncover massive corruption was made without specifics, reinforcing a pattern of making sweeping claims without substantiating them.
One of the more striking moments in the interview was Trump’s suggestion that Canada should become the 51st state due to the U.S. trade deficit. This remark reflects his tendency to make bold, unrealistic statements that lack political or economic feasibility. Similarly, his praise of tariffs as a “beautiful word” ignored the economic consequences, including potential inflation and trade conflicts. His responses on economic issues were particularly weak, as he failed to articulate a clear plan for lowering inflation and merely suggested that the U.S. would soon become “rich” without explaining how his policies would achieve that goal.
Trump also relied on personal anecdotes and self-promotion rather than policy substance. His sports commentary, while fitting for a Super Bowl interview, was filled with tangents about an athlete’s uncle, an NFL player’s wife being a Trump supporter, and his popularity with UFC fighters. While these remarks may appeal to his base, they distracted from more substantive discussions. This pattern extended to his response about uniting the country, where he claimed that “massive success” would bring Americans together. Yet, he simultaneously engaged in divisive rhetoric, particularly regarding social issues like transgender rights in sports.
Perhaps the most concerning aspect of the interview was Trump’s repeated misinformation. His dismissal of legal challenges to his administration’s policies as “crazy” lacked engagement with the arguments against them. This unwillingness to address legitimate concerns undermines the credibility of his broader policy positions.
Ultimately, Trump’s interview exposed significant weaknesses in his approach to governance. His ability to command attention and energize his base remains evident. His lack of policy depth, reliance on hyperbole, and unwillingness to engage with criticism raise serious questions about his leadership. Rather than presenting a well-reasoned vision for the country, his responses prioritized showmanship over substance, reinforcing that his political appeal is rooted more in spectacle than strategic policymaking.
What a clueless man our president is. Saluting during the Star Spangled Banner at the Super Bowl. Add that to not putting his hand on the Bible at his inauguration.