What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
May 2, 2025 Recap
Donald Trump's early morning post on Truth Social presents an overly simplified and favorable view of the current economic situation, but requires closer examination. While the post highlights the drop in gasoline prices and mentions decreases in groceries, eggs, and energy costs, claiming “no inflation” is misleading. Inflation is not solely driven by fuel prices but by a wide range of factors, including wages, housing, and healthcare costs. Thus, the broader economic landscape cannot be dismissed by pointing to a few price reductions in certain areas. The statement that “billions of dollars pour in from tariffs” is problematic as well. While tariffs might generate revenue in the short term, they also raise costs on imported goods, potentially harming consumers and businesses. This oversimplifies the complex effects of tariff policies, which often lead to higher prices and supply chain disruptions that can outweigh any revenue gains.
Furthermore, while the post asserts that mortgage rates are down and employment is strong, it provides no data to back these claims, making it harder to evaluate their accuracy or context. Employment figures, in particular, reflect long-term trends and not immediate actions from the sitting president, and mortgage rates are determined by broader monetary policies, not just executive actions. The phrase “transition stage” is also vague, lacking concrete details about what further economic policies or actions will be pursued. It sounds more like a political talking point than a substantial plan, leaving the public unclear on how the supposed improvements will continue.
Trump’s call for the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates also warrants caution. While rate cuts can stimulate growth, they could also overheat the economy and lead to instability if inflation is kept low. This recommendation seems more politically motivated, aiming to align the Fed's actions with short-term goals rather than the long-term stability that central banks typically prioritize. Finally, the post’s tone, with phrases like “Just like I said,” creates a sense of triumph and self-congratulation that fails to offer a nuanced understanding of the broader economic challenges. While the post presents a selective view of economic successes, it oversimplifies the issues and fails to address the complexities and potential downsides of these policies, which diminishes its overall credibility.
Donald Trump’s executive order establishing the Religious Liberty Commission presents itself as a defense of constitutional freedoms but is deeply embedded in partisan rhetoric and selective historical framing. The preamble invokes America’s founding ideals and religious heritage in sweeping terms, referencing early settlers, the Founders, and even quoting Ronald Reagan. While these appeals may resonate with certain audiences, they oversimplify the complex legal and social history of religious liberty in the United States. The order portrays a nation under siege from vaguely defined government overreach and cultural hostility toward religion, failing to distinguish between legitimate legal boundaries, such as the Establishment Clause, and perceived ideological threats. By citing issues like debanking religious organizations, conscience objections to vaccines, and public school prayer as examples of “emerging threats,” the order leans heavily on grievances championed by conservative religious and political groups. Existing laws or constitutional protections already address many of these concerns, yet the order implies they are unresolved, creating a sense of crisis where there may be none.
Structurally, the Commission is cumbersome, including up to 14 appointed members, three distinct advisory boards, and several high-ranking federal officials in ex officio roles. This bureaucratic layering raises questions about efficiency and redundancy, especially since federal agencies like the DOJ already monitor and litigate religious liberty issues. The order also assigns the Department of Justice to fund and staff the Commission, further entangling it with agencies whose impartiality could be challenged if the Commission’s recommendations lean toward privileging specific religious viewpoints. Moreover, while the order claims to celebrate pluralism, its emphasis on public religious displays, parental authority over education, and school prayer aligns with a particular brand of cultural conservatism. These priorities, if implemented, could invite constitutional challenges under the Establishment Clause and deepen social divisions under the guise of protecting faith.
Ending the Commission’s term on July 4, 2026—America’s 250th anniversary—further politicizes the initiative by explicitly tying religious liberty to national identity. This symbolic choice elevates religion as a defining feature of American citizenship, implicitly marginalizing non-religious individuals and minority faiths. While the order contains standard legal disclaimers clarifying that it creates no enforceable rights, its broader effect may be to embolden legal and legislative efforts aimed at redefining church-state boundaries. In essence, the Religious Liberty Commission serves less as a neutral defender of constitutional rights and more as a vehicle for advancing the Trump administration’s culture war agenda. Its creation reflects a performative approach to governance—amplifying perceived victimhood among religious constituencies while undermining the pluralistic framework necessary for true religious freedom.
Source: White House Briefing Room
Donald Trump signed an executive order titled “Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Biased Media,” framed as a measure to ensure journalistic neutrality and fiscal responsibility, but in practice, it functions as a politically motivated attempt to defund and delegitimize public broadcasting institutions, specifically NPR and PBS. The order asserts that federal funding for these organizations is outdated and corrosive to the “appearance of journalistic independence,” yet it provides no evidence or objective criteria to substantiate claims of partisanship or bias. Instead, it relies on vague accusations and an ideologically charged narrative that conflates critical reporting with political activism. This rhetorical framing disguises a partisan objective as neutral reform, undermining the First Amendment values it claims to uphold.
Legally, the order is on shaky ground. It invokes the Corporation for Public Broadcasting’s statutory obligation to avoid political party support but stretches that language to justify defunding entire networks without demonstrating that they have violated that statute. Moreover, while it is true that media organizations do not have a constitutional right to subsidies, targeting specific outlets based on perceived ideological leanings raises serious constitutional concerns. Such action can easily be construed as viewpoint discrimination—a form of government retaliation against protected speech, which courts have repeatedly ruled unconstitutional. Further complicating matters, the CPB is an independent nonprofit corporation created by Congress, not an executive agency, and its appropriations and governance are not subject to unilateral presidential control. By directing CPB to rewrite grant guidelines and cancel existing funding agreements, the order pushes the boundaries of executive authority and invites legal challenges for administrative overreach.
The order also disregards the unique civic role public broadcasting plays in the U.S. media ecosystem. While Trump claims today’s media landscape is “abundant” and no longer requires government-funded alternatives, this argument overlooks the decline of local journalism, the consolidation of corporate media, and the rise of partisan disinformation. NPR and PBS consistently rank among America's most trusted news sources, including politically diverse audiences. Their programming serves rural, underserved, and educational communities that commercial networks often neglect. Defunding them on the grounds of alleged bias, without any neutral, reviewable evidence, signals an intent to punish independence rather than uphold objectivity.
Additionally, the administrative burdens imposed by the order are sweeping and impractical. Agencies are directed to audit and terminate all funding streams, both direct and indirect, associated with NPR and PBS, while the CPB is ordered to rewrite complex grant structures with unrealistic deadlines. This level of micromanagement is inconsistent with the CPB’s independent mission and demonstrates a lack of understanding of how public media funding operates. It weaponizes bureaucratic procedures in a way that is likely to create confusion and overreach, all while chilling future partnerships with public media out of fear of political reprisal.
Ultimately, this executive order represents not a principled stand against media bias but a retaliatory act designed to reshape the media landscape through financial coercion. It fits within a broader pattern of Trump’s second-term agenda to subordinate independent institutions—educational, scientific, and journalistic alike—to partisan loyalty. By targeting NPR and PBS, the administration seeks to silence critical voices while sending a warning to other media outlets: toe the line or lose your funding. Far from protecting taxpayers, this order undermines democratic norms and the foundational principle that a free and independent press must not be subject to the whims of those in power.
Source: White House Briefing Room
Donald Trump’s commencement address at the University of Alabama was less a tribute to the graduating class of 2025 and more a sprawling, self-promotional campaign rally. While commencement speeches typically aim to inspire graduates with forward-looking wisdom and personal reflection, Trump’s remarks were dominated by political grievances, dubious statistics, culture war rhetoric, and praise for his own administration. The tone shifted erratically between nostalgic, combative, boastful, and mocking, creating a disjointed narrative that served more as a celebration of Trump’s political identity than the students’ achievements.
The speech was excessively long and lacked any coherent structure. Trump frequently veered into unrelated tangents, such as reminiscing about a real estate developer’s fall from success, mocking transgender athletes, and rehashing his grievances about media bias and the 2020 election. These digressions diluted any meaningful message for graduates and reflected a lack of focus. Moments of conventional advice—“never give up,” “love what you do,” “think big”—were present but consistently undermined by self-congratulatory asides and campaign-style boasts. Even his motivational anecdotes were framed around his own triumphs rather than tailored to the graduates’ futures.
Factual distortions were abundant throughout the address. Trump claimed a 99.999% reduction in illegal immigrant releases, a dramatic drop in egg prices, and a record-low number of border crossings—all without evidence. He also repeated debunked claims about the 2020 and 2024 elections, undermining democratic institutions in the same breath as he claimed to be defending them. His remarks about transgender athletes were especially inappropriate, devolving into crass impersonations and exaggerated stories that reinforced harmful stereotypes under the guise of protecting women’s sports.
Although Trump occasionally returned to traditional themes—hard work, momentum, and the power of perseverance—he quickly pivoted back to promoting tariffs, bashing “fake news,” and boasting about his supposed economic miracles. The address included references to military strength, Christian heritage, and American exceptionalism, all filtered through a rigidly nationalistic lens. While some graduates and attendees may have shared his worldview, the speech was polarizing by design, alienating anyone outside the Trump political fold.
What should have been a unifying moment of academic celebration became an exercise in personal glorification and partisan spectacle. Rather than focusing on the hopes and accomplishments of the class of 2025, Trump focused overwhelmingly on himself, his enemies, victories, and grievances. The speech may have entertained some, but it failed to meet the dignity or spirit of the occasion.
A recent report reveals that President Trump's investments in cryptocurrency have significantly boosted his family's wealth, with his crypto holdings now accounting for nearly 40% of his net worth, estimated at $2.9 billion. This growth is largely due to his creation of $TRUMP and $MELANIA meme coins and a major stake in World Liberty Financial, a crypto exchange launched in 2024. Additionally, World Liberty Financial is set to benefit from a substantial $2 billion investment by Abu Dhabi-backed firm MGX, which will be used to invest in the Binance exchange. The Trump family holds a 60% stake in World Liberty, with reports indicating that the family’s entity owns billions of $WLF tokens, earning 75% of net revenue from future token purchases.
The report, compiled by State Democracy Defenders Action, questions whether President Trump is profiting from his public office, noting that, unlike previous presidents, Trump has not divested assets but has instead leaned into the cryptocurrency industry. The report also points to his regulatory actions promoting digital currencies, including executive orders aimed at creating a cryptocurrency reserve. These efforts, coupled with social media posts, have at times increased the value of Trump-affiliated crypto products, generating significant profits from trading fees.
World Liberty Financial, the Trump family's crypto exchange, has raised over $550 million and offers a stablecoin product. The company lists Trump as its chief crypto advocate and has attracted notable investors, including crypto billionaire Justin Sun. While World Liberty insists on transparency with investors, concerns about potential conflicts of interest have been raised by lawmakers, who warn that Trump's involvement in the venture could pose significant risks to the financial system.
As of now, President Trump is not required to divest his assets but must disclose them annually under the Ethics in Government Act. His next financial disclosure is due on May 15, 2025.
The Trump administration agreed to stop its attempt to freeze federal funding for a Maine child nutrition program after a legal battle with the state over transgender athlete policies. The dispute began when the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) suspended access to certain federal funds following a letter from Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins. The letter accused Maine of not complying with Title IX due to the state's refusal to enforce Trump’s executive order barring transgender athletes from participating in school sports consistent with their gender identity.
As a result of the suspension, Maine's Department of Education lost access to several streams of federal money critical to administering school nutrition programs. This included over $1.8 million anticipated for the current fiscal year, more than $900,000 in previously awarded but inaccessible funds, and an expected $3 million in July for summer meal administration and reimbursements.
In response, Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey filed a lawsuit against the USDA, arguing that the funding freeze violated federal law and the USDA’s own regulations. A federal judge ruled in favor of Maine last month, finding that the state was likely to succeed in its legal challenge and ordering the Trump administration to unfreeze the funds.
Facing the court order, the Trump administration ultimately reversed its position and agreed to restore the funding. Maine has since dropped its lawsuit.
State officials responded with strong criticism. Attorney General Frey said it was “unfortunate” that legal action was required to force USDA compliance, but welcomed the resolution. Governor Janet Mills called the freeze “unlawful” and praised Frey’s office for defending access to healthy school meals for over 170,000 children across the state. The USDA did not issue a public comment in response to the settlement.
The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to overturn a Maryland judge’s order blocking Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency from accessing Social Security databases containing sensitive personal data. The administration argues that access is essential for identifying government waste, particularly in Social Security, which Musk has called a “Ponzi scheme.” The emergency appeal comes amid ongoing litigation filed by labor unions and retirees who cite privacy concerns. While a lower court allowed DOGE access to anonymized data, it restricted identifiable records under federal privacy laws. An appeals court declined to lift the injunction, with conservative judges dissenting. This case is one of roughly 200 lawsuits challenging Trump’s second-term agenda.
The U.S. has designated the Viv Ansanm and Gran Grif gangs in Haiti as “foreign terrorist organizations,” a move aligned with President Donald Trump's broader approach of targeting criminal groups in Latin America. Secretary of State Marco Rubio emphasized that these gangs contribute significantly to the violence and instability in Haiti, particularly in the capital, Port-au-Prince, where they control much of the area. This designation follows similar actions against other criminal organizations, like MS-13 and various Mexican drug cartels, and is part of the U.S. administration’s efforts to combat drug trafficking and irregular migration.
The designation bars individuals associated with these gangs from entering the U.S. and criminalizes providing support to them, which could complicate international aid efforts in Haiti. Critics warn that the move could hinder humanitarian aid, as these gangs control commerce and impose tolls, making it difficult for supplies to reach the country. The gangs have grown in influence, especially after the assassination of President Jovenel Moise in 2021, which left a power vacuum.
Despite the Trump administration’s aggressive stance, there are concerns about the effectiveness of the U.S.-backed international security mission in Haiti, particularly given the country's long history of failed interventions. Additionally, Trump has sought to end programs like Temporary Protected Status for Haitians, which currently shields over half a million individuals in the U.S. from deportation.
The Trump administration has filed lawsuits against four Democratic-led states—New York, Vermont, Hawaii, and Michigan—seeking to block laws and lawsuits aimed at holding the fossil fuel industry accountable for climate change. The U.S. Department of Justice argues that these states' laws, which require oil companies to fund climate change damages, are unconstitutional. In particular, New York's “superfund” law, designed to raise $75 billion for state infrastructure, is criticized by the Justice Department as a “monetary-extraction scheme.”
The lawsuits also challenge the planned actions of Hawaii and Michigan, claiming that these states' climate change lawsuits could undermine federal regulations and energy policies. Despite the administration's efforts, Hawaii proceeded with its lawsuit against major oil companies, accusing them of failing to warn about the dangers of fossil fuels. Michigan, while not yet filing, has signaled its intention to pursue similar litigation.
The Justice Department's lawsuits align with the Trump administration's broader push to limit environmental litigation, as part of efforts to promote energy independence and economic security. States like New York and Vermont have defended their laws, arguing that oil companies should pay for the climate damage they have caused. These cases reflect ongoing legal battles over whether states can pursue climate-related lawsuits in state courts instead of federal courts.
A federal judge ruled on Friday that President Trump's March executive order targeting Perkins Coie, a prominent law firm, is unconstitutional and ordered the government to refrain from enforcing it. U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell blocked the order, asserting that it violated several constitutional provisions. In her 102-page ruling, Howell likened the order to Shakespeare's famous line, “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers,” pointing out the unprecedented nature of the president's action.
Trump's executive order aimed to bar Perkins Coie attorneys from accessing federal buildings, revoke their security clearances, and review the firm's contracts, reflecting broader efforts to penalize law firms that represented his political opponents or were linked to investigations against him. Other law firms, such as WilmerHale and Susman Godfrey, sued the administration, while some firms like Skadden Arps reached deals to have the orders dropped.
Perkins Coie, which represented Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, quickly filed a lawsuit, leading to Howell’s temporary block of parts of the order. In her final ruling, Howell emphasized that targeting lawyers based on their clients and political views violated the First Amendment, stating that government should respond to dissent with tolerance, not coercion.
How did the audience of U. Of Alabama graduating seniors react to Trump’s speech? (I can’t bear to watch it myself.)