What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
May 28, 2025 Recap
Donald Trump’s swearing-in ceremony for Fox News host Jeanine Pirro as interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia began under the pretense of formal recognition but quickly devolved into a disjointed and deeply politicized event. The initial remarks, ostensibly to honor Pirro’s appointment, prioritized personal anecdotes, television notoriety, and partisan loyalty over a substantive discussion of her legal philosophy or her plans for federal prosecution in the nation’s capital. Trump’s praise focused not on her legal credentials or prosecutorial acumen, but on her public persona, calling her “incredible,” “as good as anybody,” and emphasizing her success in television rather than her legal experience. The ceremony served less as a recognition of professional merit and more as a platform for reinforcing the president’s preference for loyalists elevated through ideological alignment rather than institutional independence. That Pirro—a longtime Fox News personality and staunch Trump supporter—was appointed to one of the most sensitive prosecutorial roles in the federal system underscores how deeply Trump has politicized the Department of Justice.
Trump’s rhetoric repeatedly conflated legal performance with political identity. He invoked Pirro’s prior work in Westchester County, where she served as both judge and district attorney, but framed her effectiveness not in terms of legal judgment or prosecutorial restraint, but in her perceived toughness and ideological alignment with Trump’s law-and-order worldview. He claimed that other judges could not handle complex cases, drawing a parallel to his own sister, and he asserted—without evidence—that today’s prosecutors pursue “fake criminals” instead of violent offenders. Such language trivializes due process and delegitimizes the judicial discretion that underpins the American legal system. By framing the appointment as a return to “real justice,” Trump used the occasion to perpetuate his narrative that existing institutions are corrupt unless they serve his political agenda.
Jeanine Pirro’s own remarks, delivered after the oath of office, were equally charged with ideological rhetoric and populist appeals. She described her career as a personal crusade on behalf of “victims of violent crimes,” especially women, children, and the elderly—language that, while emotive, lacked acknowledgment of the constitutional limits and impartiality expected of a U.S. Attorney. She referenced a recent D.C. double homicide and declared that “violence will be addressed directly with the appropriate punishment,” pledging “no more mercy for criminals.” Her language evoked retributive justice more than prosecutorial independence, hinting at a willingness to wield the office with political intent. Her use of phrases like “shining city on a hill” and “an America that President Trump has promised to make great again” tied her prosecutorial role directly to the president’s political movement, further eroding the appearance of neutrality in federal law enforcement.
After the ceremony concluded, the event unraveled into a chaotic and rambling press conference dominated by Trump’s improvisational style. Questions about Pirro's role gave way almost instantly to sprawling commentary on topics ranging from Vladimir Putin and Russia’s conduct in Ukraine to the war in Gaza, Elon Musk’s criticism of Trump’s economic policies, TikTok’s role in the 2024 election, sanctions on Iran, and attacks on elite universities—particularly Harvard. Throughout these exchanges, Trump veered wildly off-topic, indulging in stream-of-consciousness riffs filled with contradictions, exaggerations, and factual distortions. He claimed that the U.S. is “the hottest country in the world,” that he single-handedly brought inflation down “to practically zero,” and that Harvard accepted more than $5 billion in foreign funding without proper oversight—none of which he substantiated. His talking points collapsed into grievances against Democrats, universities, and media outlets, all framed as adversaries in a culture war he portrayed himself as heroically battling.
Trump's language throughout was peppered with personal slights and grievances. He derided a reporter’s question about trade policy as “the nastiest question,” declared Democrats to be “bad people,” and labeled judges who obstruct his immigration policy as responsible for “letting murderers and the mentally insane into the country.” He even entertained the idea of pardoning individuals convicted of plotting to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, dismissing the charges as possibly a “railroad job,” citing alcohol and “stupid things” people said. These comments reflected a broader pattern of undermining the rule of law when it is politically inconvenient to him. Meanwhile, his discourse on immigration and foreign students was steeped in nativism, suggesting that visa approvals should be limited based on ideology, country of origin, and presumed loyalty to the United States.
The president’s comments about Harvard were particularly concerning. He accused the institution of anti-Semitism, condemned its curriculum for allegedly offering remedial math courses, and claimed—without basis—that many of its foreign students were radicalized and should be expelled. He proposed using Harvard’s own endowment funds to create trade schools in red states, suggesting a form of punitive redistribution based on ideological loyalty. Such statements further erode the principle of institutional autonomy and reflect an intent to weaponize federal authority against educational institutions deemed politically hostile.
What began as a ceremonial swearing-in of a federal prosecutor became a political stage for a president who consistently blurs the line between government function and personal agenda. Jeanine Pirro’s appointment, steeped in loyalty and spectacle, reflects Trump’s continued transformation of the Justice Department into an extension of his political apparatus. The event showcased not only Trump’s disregard for the norms of apolitical governance but also his willingness to exploit judicial appointments, foreign policy, economic policy, and immigration law as instruments of personal vindication and populist rhetoric. The performance was not one of statesmanship but of domination—an extension of Trump’s ongoing attempt to reshape American institutions in his image, at the expense of their credibility, independence, and constitutional role.
Donald Trump issued a wide-ranging set of clemency actions that included both pardons and sentence commutations for a mix of political allies, celebrities, and controversial figures, many of whom had connections to Trump’s political base, criminal justice reform allies, or personal events.
Former Rep. Michael Grimm (R-NY) received a full pardon. Grimm, who represented Staten Island and parts of Brooklyn from 2011 to 2015, pleaded guilty to felony tax fraud and served seven months in prison. Despite his criminal conviction, Grimm remained politically active and retained support among some right-wing groups. His pardon restores full civil rights and erases the conviction from his record. Notably, Grimm was also recently injured in a polo accident, which garnered media attention.
Larry Hoover, the infamous co-founder of the Gangster Disciples gang, had his federal sentence commuted. Hoover has been serving multiple life sentences—one from the 1970s for murder and another from the 1990s for running a criminal enterprise from prison. Hoover's supporters, including criminal justice reform advocates, have long argued that he is rehabilitated and have invoked the First Step Act, a 2018 law signed by Trump, to push for his release. While his federal sentence is now commuted, Hoover remains incarcerated under a separate state conviction and was reportedly being transferred from a federal prison in Colorado to a state facility in Illinois.
Another high-profile pardon went to rapper Kentrell Gaulden, better known as NBA YoungBoy, who has faced numerous legal issues involving weapons charges, drug offenses, and house arrest violations. Trump’s clemency in Gaulden’s case is a striking example of outreach to younger and more culturally influential constituencies.
Trump also pardoned former Connecticut Governor John Rowland (R). Rowland had a long and scandal-ridden career, having resigned in 2004 amid a corruption scandal, pleaded guilty, served time, and was later convicted again in 2014 for campaign finance violations tied to a consulting scheme. Trump’s decision to pardon Rowland fits within a broader pattern of forgiving Republican politicians caught up in financial or ethical misconduct.
A handful of lesser-known individuals were also granted clemency:
Mark Bashaw, a U.S. Army officer convicted in 2022 for refusing to comply with COVID-19 regulations, was pardoned in what appears to be a nod to anti-mandate and anti-vaccine mandate constituencies.
Tanner Mansell and John Moore were convicted of interfering with a government shark conservation project, specifically for releasing sharks from a sanctioned fishing line, according to the Palm Beach Post. Their pardon aligns with recent Trump statements criticizing environmental regulations and government overreach.
Additional pardons were granted to Annabelle Valenzuela, Maryanne Morgan, Kevin Basin, and Earl Lamont Smith. These names were reportedly put forward by Alice Marie Johnson, a formerly incarcerated criminal justice reform advocate who became Trump’s unofficial “pardon czar” after her own commutation in 2018. Johnson has been influential in pushing Trump toward certain clemency cases with a reform-oriented framing.
Trump’s actions today continue a pattern of strategic clemency: mixing populist appeals, personal loyalty, and media optics. The pardon of Todd and Julie Chrisley, reality TV stars convicted of tax evasion and fraud, is a prime example. Trump announced their clemency just days after speaking with their daughter, Savannah Chrisley, and following a major fundraiser at Mar-a-Lago attended by the mother of Paul Walczak, another individual pardoned for tax crimes.
Overall, this wave of clemency illustrates Trump's willingness to use the pardon power both for symbolic gestures to supporters and as political favors, often outside the traditional Department of Justice review process.
Vice President JD Vance’s remarks at the 2025 Bitcoin Conference in Las Vegas were energetic and aimed at affirming the Trump administration’s full-throated embrace of the cryptocurrency community. However, while the speech resonated with the crowd’s libertarian ethos and anti-regulation fervor, it suffered from structural disorder, rhetorical overkill, and an alarming lack of substantive policy detail. Delivered in a conversational, off-the-cuff style, the speech was riddled with repeated stammering, filler phrases, and disjointed transitions. The first several minutes devolved into a scattered sequence of shoutouts and gratitude, gratifying to allies but delaying any coherent introduction to his message. Anecdotes about Secret Service concerns and dinner plans with Sen. Cynthia Lummis, while perhaps amusing in person, diminished the professionalism and purpose of the occasion.
Substantively, Vance’s speech was heavy on ideological posture but thin on concrete policy content. His central priorities—ending the so-called “lawfare” against crypto, advancing the “Genius Act” for stablecoin regulation, and integrating digital assets into the mainstream economy—were mentioned repeatedly, yet never meaningfully explained. For instance, while he claims the Genius Act will expand stablecoin use and bolster the dollar, he offers no discussion of economic risks, monetary implications, or how stablecoin frameworks would be implemented. His unqualified declarations—such as “Operation Chokepoint 2.0 is dead” and “we fired Gary Gensler”—play well to a hostile audience but fail to outline a vision of constructive reform. The speech also ignored any of the serious challenges facing the crypto industry, including fraud, illicit finance, market volatility, or energy usage.
Instead of engaging policy complexities, Vance leaned into a culture war narrative. He framed cryptocurrency as a hedge against bad policymaking, inflation, and even private-sector discrimination, casting bureaucrats and Democrats as enemies of innovation. He portrayed Bitcoin not as a financial tool but as a symbol of freedom and resistance. His repeated invocation of China—claiming that if the Chinese Communist Party dislikes Bitcoin, America must embrace it—simplified complex geopolitical dynamics into an ideological reflex. This adversarial framing may galvanize political supporters but does little to reassure markets, institutions, or cautious innovators seeking thoughtful regulation. The announcement of a “Bitcoin Reserve” under federal control—presumably some form of sovereign BTC stockpile—was floated without any policy scaffolding, oversight mechanism, or economic rationale.
Ultimately, Vance’s speech revealed a political strategy, not a governing one. It positioned the Trump administration as the avenger of Silicon Valley libertarians and financial populists, willing to dismantle regulatory structures and convert crypto into a nationalist symbol. But such rhetoric—eschewing nuance in favor of binary allegiances—risks further politicizing financial infrastructure. It downplays the importance of balanced regulatory regimes, consumer protection, and economic stability in favor of narrative dominance. While the Vice President clearly seeks to mobilize a constituency that feels embattled by previous administrations, he does so by replacing technocratic rigor with cultural messaging. The speech may have roused the room, but it left behind more questions than answers about how the U.S. government intends to responsibly integrate digital assets into its economic future.
A U.S. judge in New Jersey said the Trump administration’s effort to deport Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian Columbia University student and pro-Palestinian activist, is likely unconstitutional. Khalil was arrested in March after the State Department revoked his green card, citing a rarely used law allowing deportation of non-citizens deemed harmful to U.S. foreign policy interests. Judge Michael Farbiarz indicated that this law is likely unconstitutionally vague, suggesting an ordinary person wouldn’t know they could be targeted for their speech.
Although the judge has not yet ruled on whether Khalil’s First Amendment rights were violated, Khalil and his supporters argue the arrest was retaliation for his criticism of Israel’s military actions in Gaza following Hamas’ October 7, 2023 attack. Khalil, who was born in a Syrian refugee camp, came to the U.S. on a student visa in 2022 and gained permanent residency in 2023 through his American wife. He is the first known student detained under Trump’s crackdown on foreign students involved in pro-Palestinian protests. Similar detentions of other students are being challenged, with courts recently ordering their release.
The Trump administration’s handling of the humanitarian parole case involving Deysi Vargas and her 4-year-old daughter, Sofia Villa, reveals a disturbing blend of ethical indifference, administrative rigidity, and policy cruelty. Sofia suffers from short bowel syndrome, a rare and life-threatening condition that requires 14 hours of intravenous nutrition each day—treatment that is only available in the United States. Deporting the family under these circumstances, as attorneys and medical professionals have stressed, is tantamount to issuing a death sentence for the child. For an administration that frequently proclaims its commitment to protecting life and upholding family values, this decision exposes a glaring hypocrisy. The humanitarian parole process exists precisely for situations like this—temporary relief for those in extraordinary circumstances—and yet the administration has not only revoked the family's legal status but also ignored appeals from legal advocates.
Legally, the revocation appears to lack transparency and due process. The family received multiple notices without any substantial explanation or opportunity to contest the decision meaningfully. This approach undermines the very foundation of administrative justice and humanitarian discretion. More broadly, the administration’s ongoing effort to dismantle humanitarian parole as a policy tool suggests an ideological hardening of immigration enforcement that disregards individual circumstances, including medical emergencies. Instead of evaluating cases on their merits, the administration appears committed to sweeping restrictions that sacrifice compassion for political optics.
This case also underscores a troubling pattern in the Trump administration’s immigration strategy, where cruelty is not a policy failure but an intentional feature. Targeting even the most vulnerable individuals—children who rely on U.S.-based medical care—sends a message that no humanitarian exception will be considered. The refusal to respond to legal appeals and humanitarian petitions reflects an administration more interested in projecting “toughness” than exercising reasonable governance. Ultimately, the treatment of Sofia Villa and her family is not just a legal or policy issue; it is a moral indictment of an administration that has chosen to forsake decency in favor of exclusion.
Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell, along with 15 other state attorneys general, has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration to block funding cuts to the National Science Foundation. The administration has targeted NSF programs, especially those promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion in STEM fields, and imposed a 15% cap on indirect research costs—funds typically used for labs and equipment. The lawsuit argues these actions are arbitrary, unlawful, and unconstitutional, as they bypass congressional intent. Campbell warns that the cuts pose a threat to public health, the economy, and national security. Similar federal cost caps have already been blocked in court for other agencies.
The Trump administration has canceled a loan guarantee of up to $3 billion that was previously awarded to solar panel installer Sunnova Energy under the Biden administration. The loan, intended to support rooftop solar projects, was part of the Department of Energy’s Loan Programs Office efforts to boost clean energy. Trump officials, focused on increasing oil and gas production, are reviewing such alternative energy financing. The future of the LPO is uncertain amid job cuts by the Department of Government Efficiency and proposed budget reductions.
This development reflects a broader ideological shift in energy policy under President Trump’s second term—one that prioritizes fossil fuel expansion over clean energy investment. Canceling the $3 billion loan guarantee to Sunnova Energy not only undermines a key initiative from the Biden administration aimed at accelerating residential solar adoption but also sends a chilling signal to the private sector about the stability and reliability of federal clean energy commitments.
The justification—that the Department of Energy’s Loan Programs Office is under review—is a thin veil for an openly deregulatory agenda that favors the oil and gas industry. The Trump administration’s framing of the LPO as needing scrutiny is undercut by the program’s role in supporting projects that the private market, due to risk aversion or longer return timelines, has been reluctant to fund. The abrupt withdrawal of the Sunnova guarantee suggests political interference rather than any demonstrable failure or inefficiency in the LPO’s process.
Moreover, the involvement of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency raises additional concerns. The mention of job cuts and budget reductions for the LPO indicates a structural dismantling of federal capacity to facilitate clean energy transition. This isn't just a policy reversal; it’s an institutional rollback designed to weaken public investment in alternative energy infrastructure.
In practical terms, rescinding the loan harms both economic and environmental progress. It jeopardizes jobs tied to rooftop solar installation and further distances the U.S. from global efforts to decarbonize. It also contradicts growing market trends where even large financial institutions are increasingly investing in renewables, not coal or oil.
The Trump administration has rescinded a Biden-era Labor Department guidance that warned employers against including cryptocurrency and digital assets like NFTs and meme coins in 401(k) retirement plans. The previous guidance, issued in 2022, urged “extreme care” due to risks of fraud, theft, and loss. The current Labor Department claims that standard is not found in ERISA law and states it is taking a neutral stance—neither endorsing nor opposing crypto in retirement plans.
Critics argue the move removes an important safeguard, effectively giving a green light to risky investments. Knut Rostad of the Institute for the Fiduciary Standard called it a “big mistake,” while Philip Chao, a financial planner, warned that fiduciary duties under ERISA still apply, and employers could face lawsuits if crypto investments go bad.
The policy shift aligns with President Trump’s broader embrace of cryptocurrency, including his own $TRUMP meme coin, and his vow to make the U.S. the “crypto capital of the world.” Supporters see the change as ending regulatory bias against crypto, while critics argue it endangers retirement savers by legitimizing volatile, poorly regulated assets.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency has denied North Carolina’s request for 100% federal cost-sharing for Hurricane Helene cleanup, rejecting the state’s appeal despite the storm killing over 230 people and causing severe flooding. The denial breaks from a Biden-era policy of fully matching state disaster funds and reverts to the traditional 75/25 federal-state split. North Carolina Governor Josh Stein warned that this would cost the state hundreds of millions and hinder recovery efforts.
The decision comes amid broader efforts by the Trump administration to downsize or eliminate FEMA. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has echoed Trump’s call to restructure or dissolve the agency, arguing it has failed its mission. An internal FEMA review also found the agency unprepared for the 2025 hurricane season due to staffing and coordination issues.
North Carolina is the second state to have a FEMA aid request denied under the Trump administration, following a similar rejection for Arkansas. These developments occur as the U.S. braces for an active Atlantic hurricane season.