What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
May 8, 2025 Recap
Donald Trump’s Truth Social post about the Digital Equity Act exemplifies his trademark rhetorical style, marked by combative language, sweeping declarations, and capitalized emphasis meant to inflame and energize his political base. In the post, he declares the Digital Equity Act “totally UNCONSTITUTIONAL,” labeling it a “RACIST and ILLEGAL” $2.5 billion “giveaway” and vowing to end it immediately. This framing significantly misrepresents the legislation, which was enacted as part of the bipartisan 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The purpose of the Digital Equity Act is to promote access to broadband internet and digital tools, particularly for underserved populations such as rural communities, low-income households, veterans, seniors, and the disabled, not to distribute benefits based on race. Trump’s accusation that the program constitutes “woke handouts based on race” is not only factually inaccurate but relies on racially charged language designed to provoke outrage and bolster a culture war narrative.
His claim that the program is unconstitutional is unsupported by any legal reasoning. As a duly enacted federal law, the program cannot be summarily dismantled by presidential decree without either congressional repeal or a judicial ruling. Any attempt to defund or shut it down through executive action would almost certainly face legal challenges for violating the separation of powers. Furthermore, the claim that he is “saving taxpayers BILLIONS” is misleading. The total funding for the Digital Equity Act is $2.75 billion spread across multiple years, a relatively modest expenditure within the broader context of federal infrastructure spending. Trump’s declaration that he is unilaterally ending the program exemplifies a broader pattern of undermining governance norms and disregarding the lawful policymaking process. Rather than engage with the legitimate goals of the policy—to address long-standing gaps in digital access—Trump repackages it as a symbol of ideological extremism, mischaracterizing its intent to suit his political narrative.
In another Truth Social post, Donald Trump announced Jeanine Pirro’s appointment as interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. The announcement reads more like a fan tribute than a formal statement of executive decision-making. The tone is highly promotional, with superlatives like “in a class by herself” and “one of the Top District Attorneys in the History of the State of New York,” which lack objective support and signal political favoritism more than professional evaluation.
From a governance perspective, this announcement raises serious concerns about the politicization of federal law enforcement. The U.S. Attorney for D.C. holds one of the most critical prosecutorial roles in the country, often overseeing politically sensitive and high-profile cases, including those involving public corruption. Appointing a former Fox News commentator with deep partisan ties and no recent prosecutorial experience to this role suggests a prioritization of loyalty and media profile over impartiality and institutional competence.
While the post recounts Pirro’s past achievements in Westchester County, it omits the long gap between her DA tenure and this appointment, during which she was primarily engaged in political punditry, not practicing law. This raises the question of whether she has maintained the legal and ethical grounding required for such a consequential position.
Moreover, by delivering the announcement in a glowing, campaign-style format rather than through an official press release or legal memorandum, Trump undermines the seriousness of the appointment and reinforces concerns about the erosion of norms in federal appointments under his administration.
The White House released the General Terms for the United States–United Kingdom Economic Prosperity Deal (EPD), a diplomatically framed yet strategically ambiguous document that outlines an aspirational economic agreement between the Trump administration and the UK’s new Labour government under Prime Minister Keir Starmer. While the structure is orderly and its stated objectives—expanding trade, reducing barriers, and strengthening the bilateral economic relationship—are conventional and laudable, the document is riddled with conditional language, vague timelines, and legally non-binding commitments that substantially weaken its credibility. Most of the provisions are prefaced with terms like “intends to,” “plans to,” or “will consider,” signaling that the proposals are more aspirational than actionable. The clearest example of this is the repeated acknowledgment that the text “does not constitute a legally binding agreement,” which makes the sweeping nature of its promises difficult to take at face value.
Tariff-related provisions in the EPD display an imbalance that favors the United States. The United Kingdom makes more concrete concessions—such as eliminating a 20% tariff on U.S. beef, creating a large duty-free ethanol quota, and pledging rapid compliance with U.S. supply chain security requirements—while the U.S. mostly offers conditional access, subject to national security reviews or future Section 232 investigations. These mechanisms, frequently used during Trump’s first term to justify tariffs on steel, autos, and even pharmaceuticals, allow the U.S. to maintain unilateral leverage under the guise of protecting national security. The language surrounding U.S. tariff commitments is heavily caveated, and the power dynamic throughout the document reflects this asymmetry.
Regarding non-tariff barriers, the EPD is more technocratic but still suffers from a lack of detail regarding enforcement. The commitments to sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) standards and mutual recognition of conformity assessment bodies are standard inclusions in modern trade deals. However, the document avoids addressing specific friction points, such as longstanding UK concerns over U.S. agricultural practices, including hormone-treated beef and chlorinated chicken. Similarly, the pledge to expand mutual recognition agreements and align on international standards development organizations (SDOs) lacks the specificity needed to assess whether meaningful regulatory alignment is likely to emerge. This vagueness may prove problematic, especially given the UK's previous alignment with EU regulations.
The digital trade section is encouraging in scope but hollow in execution. While it promises “ambitious” provisions and includes references to paperless trade and financial services, it omits critical areas such as data privacy, cross-border data flows, and cybersecurity cooperation. These are typically contentious issues in U.S. digital trade agreements, and their absence raises doubts about the robustness of any future framework. The document becomes more ideological on economic security and procurement. It incorporates protectionist overtones by linking market access to national security standards, investment screening, and ICT vendor policies. While couched in the language of cooperation, these provisions allow both governments, especially the U.S., to unilaterally restrict trade under broad, vaguely defined security concerns.
The commitments on labor rights, environmental standards, and intellectual property are largely symbolic. There is no binding language to enforce high labor standards or environmental protections, and IP provisions are mentioned only in passing. This omission contrasts sharply with more comprehensive modern trade agreements, which increasingly tie market access to social and environmental accountability. The document also sidesteps politically sensitive areas such as investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms, subsidy disciplines, or currency manipulation, which are critical to the integrity of large-scale trade agreements.
While the EPD is presented as a forward-looking and reciprocal trade framework, it appears more like a political declaration than a substantive policy blueprint. The UK offers more immediate and tangible concessions, while the U.S. leverages national security mechanisms to delay or condition its commitments. The document reflects Trump-era trade nationalism cloaked in the rhetoric of partnership, and its open-ended, non-binding structure means it can be unilaterally altered or terminated with minimal consequence. Without firmer legal commitments and clearer implementation mechanisms, the EPD is unlikely to yield the kind of “enduring economic partnership” it claims to pursue. Instead, it risks functioning primarily as a symbolic reaffirmation of the so-called “Special Relationship,” rather than a reliable or enforceable framework for transatlantic trade integration.
Source: White House Briefing Room
The press conference announcing the U.S.–U.K. Economic Prosperity Deal was framed by President Trump as both a historic trade breakthrough and a symbolic reaffirmation of the transatlantic alliance. However, the event quickly devolved into a meandering and unfocused spectacle that exposed more about Trump’s political style and improvisational governance than the actual substance of the deal. Trump opened by linking the agreement’s timing to the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe Day, attempting to draw a direct line between WWII military triumph and contemporary economic nationalism. While the symbolism was rhetorically potent, the execution was heavy-handed and self-congratulatory, with Trump declaring the U.S. the primary victor of WWII and using the anniversary as a platform for nationalistic boasts. The Prime Minister, in contrast, struck a more measured tone, emphasizing cooperation, reciprocity, and historical continuity, though even his remarks often leaned into performative flattery.
In terms of policy, the deal appeared to be a modest set of tariff adjustments, regulatory easing, and expanded agricultural market access. Trump exaggerated its scope, calling it a “maxed out” agreement and the result of 25 years of failed attempts by previous leaders. He claimed that the U.K. had been a closed market, despite longstanding trade between the two nations. The most specific commitments included a $5 billion expansion of U.S. agricultural exports and new access for U.S. industrial goods, particularly beef, ethanol, and machinery. While these benefits are not insignificant, they were overshadowed by vague promises, unverified numbers, and boastful anecdotes. Trump’s repeated assertions that the deal was only possible due to his personal involvement—framing himself as “the closer”—reduced the diplomatic event to a stage for ego-driven performance rather than statecraft.
The press conference was also notable for its frequent and sometimes bizarre digressions. Trump veered off-topic repeatedly, discussing everything from Sean Connery’s role in his Scottish golf resort approval, to his grievances with former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, to his feelings about the Federal Reserve. These diversions, along with inflammatory rhetoric about China, blunt attacks on U.S. companies like Ford and Mattel, and graphic descriptions of the war in Ukraine, detracted from the legitimacy of the occasion. At times, the president seemed more interested in airing personal grudges and improvising trade theory than explaining the specifics of the agreement. The result was a disjointed narrative that left crucial policy questions—such as food safety standards, digital trade alignment, and enforcement mechanisms—either unanswered or glossed over.
Despite moments of coherence from U.K. officials and members of Trump’s economic team, including Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, the overall tone of the event suggested more of a campaign rally than a formal state announcement. Praise for Trump’s dealmaking was effusive and sometimes sycophantic, with repeated emphasis on his ability to cut through bureaucracy and pressure foreign leaders into last-minute concessions. Yet this personalization of diplomacy raises serious concerns about sustainability and strategic coherence. The deal, while potentially beneficial in narrow economic terms, was framed in a way that prioritized spectacle over substance and unilateral bravado over multilateral alignment.
The announcement of the U.S.–U.K. Economic Prosperity Deal was intended to mark a turning point in transatlantic trade relations, but the theatrics of the press conference and the lack of substantive detail undermined its credibility. While the agreement may deliver incremental gains for certain U.S. sectors, particularly agriculture, it is unlikely to represent a transformative moment in trade policy. Instead, the event served primarily to reinforce the Trump administration’s preference for symbolic wins, media-driven governance, and transactional diplomacy over clear, institutional, and forward-looking strategy.
The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to overturn a lower-court ruling that blocks its attempt to end humanitarian parole for over 500,000 immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. The administration claims the decision improperly limits the Department of Homeland Security's authority. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, an Obama appointee, previously halted the termination of the program, calling the government’s legal justification flawed and warning of severe consequences for affected immigrants. The case is part of Trump’s broader effort to reverse Biden-era immigration policies, particularly those expanding legal pathways through humanitarian parole. Advocates argue that Trump’s move to abruptly end the program is both unlawful and without precedent.
The Trump administration has disbanded the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC), a federal group that has advised U.S. health agencies for over 30 years on infection prevention in medical settings. The decision follows a broader executive order issued in February aimed at cutting down federal advisory bodies. HICPAC, comprised of independent experts in fields like epidemiology, nursing, and infection control, was known for issuing evidence-based guidance adopted by the CDC and widely used across hospitals and healthcare facilities.
The committee's termination has alarmed public health professionals and organizations, who argue that its absence will leave healthcare systems without reliable, expert-led recommendations, particularly dangerous amid rising threats from new pathogens and antibiotic-resistant infections. While HICPAC faced criticism in 2023 for proposing less stringent airborne protection guidelines, many experts insist its work remains crucial for patient and worker safety. Multiple health associations have condemned the move, warning that it endangers progress in infection control and national health preparedness.
Source: Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy
At last we haven’t had to hear what Donald thinks of the new Pope Leo. Yet.