What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
April 9, 2025 Recap
Facing growing fears of a recession and mounting pressure from volatile financial markets, Donald Trump abruptly announced a 90-day pause on most of his global tariffs, even as he dramatically increased Chinese imports to 125%. The move marked a major shift in what had been a broad and escalating trade war, narrowing the conflict to a direct showdown between the United States and China. The announcement sent the S&P 500 surging by 9.5%, as markets responded favorably to signs of de-escalation. During the pause, a 10% tariff rate will apply to most countries, significantly lower than the previously announced 20–25% for allies like Japan, South Korea, and the European Union. However, Canada and Mexico remain excluded from the pause due to a separate directive tied to fentanyl smuggling.
The administration framed the tariff retreat as part of a long-term negotiating strategy, but conflicting statements from officials undercut this claim. President Trump asserted that more than 75 countries had contacted the U.S. requesting trade talks, prompting him to authorize the pause and offer reduced reciprocal tariffs. Yet his remarks to reporters suggested a more reactive decision-making process, citing investor anxiety, plunging bond prices, and rising interest rates as factors that forced his hand. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent claimed the decision was strategic, driven by diplomatic outreach, while Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick insisted market turmoil had no bearing on the move. Trump himself contradicted these narratives, admitting the decision came together that morning and was not previously planned.
This policy whiplash reveals the erratic and reactive nature of Trump’s second-term economic strategy. By hiking Chinese tariffs while easing global ones, Trump is attempting to isolate China as the principal economic adversary. This move may appeal politically but risks worsening inflation and disrupting key supply chains. Business leaders and economists had been warning of a downturn, citing simultaneous shocks to consumer sentiment, corporate confidence, trade, and financial markets. Delta Air Lines, for instance, had to walk back its optimistic 2025 financial projections due to the uncertainty created by the administration’s inconsistent trade stance.
The 90-day window now opens the door to country-by-country negotiations, which the administration promises will be "bespoke" and conducted in good faith. Yet, given the whipsaw nature of recent policy shifts, it remains unclear whether global partners will trust the U.S. to hold a steady course. The chaos has revealed just how deeply Trump's personal whims and social media posts can sway global markets and policymaking. While some, like hedge fund manager Bill Ackman, praised the move as a textbook Trump maneuver, others see it as a necessary retreat dressed up as strategy. Whether the administration can stabilize its approach and avoid further economic fallout will be tested in the coming weeks as businesses, investors, and global leaders look for consistency — and clarity — in a trade policy that has delivered neither.
In an appearance at the White House, while responding to a pause on non-China tariffs and signing a sweeping series of executive orders, Donald Trump delivered a sprawling, frequently off-topic speech that merged deregulation, economic nationalism, and personal grievances into one chaotic performance. Among the clearer policy moves was an executive order aimed at expediting foreign military sales, directing the Departments of Defense and State to reform approval processes in the name of reliability and job creation. This segment, though underexplored, offered one of the few moments of strategic clarity—acknowledging a bureaucratic bottleneck and seeking to address it through interagency reform. However, Trump’s framing prioritized revenue and defense contractor profits, with no mention of human rights accountability, end-use restrictions, or geopolitical consequences, particularly in volatile regions.
The remainder of the briefing leaned heavily into performative populism, particularly in the president’s extended, almost theatrical outrage over consumer appliance regulations. Trump spent a remarkable amount of time denouncing Biden-era rules on low-flow showerheads, dishwashers, and faucets, calling them an attack on personal freedom and water pressure. His anecdote about needing "15 minutes" to wet his hair encapsulated the speech’s tone: more personal irritation than coherent policy. While there may be legitimate debates about burdensome regulations, Trump’s style turned this into a farce, distracting from more meaningful regulatory critiques, such as those that may inhibit small businesses or protect monopolies. His mention of restoring plastic straws and reversing environmental standards was delivered with gleeful derision, showcasing an administration prioritizing comfort and symbolic consumer freedoms over environmental sustainability.
More alarming were Trump’s retaliatory executive actions targeting law firms and former federal officials. Several orders focused on punishing entities like Susman Godfrey and former officials Miles Taylor and Chris Krebs, accusing them of participating in so-called “lawfare” against him. Trump openly called Taylor a “traitor,” proposed criminal investigations into Krebs, and claimed they had committed acts of espionage or treason for criticizing his administration or questioning the 2020 election. This weaponization of executive power against critics and legal professionals sets a chilling precedent. Rather than reinforcing the independence of the Department of Justice or respecting legal institutions, Trump openly uses executive authority to exact revenge—blurring the line between governance and personal vendetta.
Several deregulation orders were also issued, including one mandating “zero-based regulatory budgeting,” requiring agencies to continually review and sunset outdated rules. This concept, while potentially productive in theory, risks becoming a tool for ideologically driven purges of regulations in areas like environmental protection, labor rights, and health policy. Similarly, another order aimed to eliminate existing rules seen as anti-competitive—an area where deregulation could have value if paired with clear antitrust enforcement. But again, the focus was diluted by Trump’s rambling style, which veered off into critiques of math education at Harvard and conspiratorial allusions to censorship and wokeism.
Trump's tariffs and trade policy were predictably contradictory. He simultaneously boasted about historic revenue from tariffs, praised the market for its recovery, and defended a pause on non-China tariffs as both a humanitarian gesture and a strategic calculation. His narrative lacks economic consistency—celebrating the burden tariffs place on other nations while ignoring the domestic cost to U.S. consumers and producers. He referred to the European Union’s hesitation to retaliate with tariffs as a sign of their strategic weakness while offering only vague criteria for which countries will be granted exemptions or priority in trade negotiations.
Trump also returned to his hardline stance on Iran, reiterating that military action is on the table if Iran fails to comply with his nuclear demands. This came without specifics on diplomatic strategy, timelines, or safeguards, and he suggested Israel would “lead” any potential confrontation. Such casual militarism—offered without nuance or contingency—repeats a pattern of impulsive, unilateral declarations untethered from multilateral frameworks or long-term strategy.
Toward the end of the appearance, Trump again devolved into tirades about the use of autopens, falsely suggesting that whoever controls an autopen is essentially acting as president. This bizarre fixation surfaced during the signing of proclamations honoring former POWs and crime victims—occasions typically handled with dignity. Instead, he used the moment to call into question President Biden’s physical and cognitive ability to govern, baselessly implying that someone else is secretly running the country.
This event exemplifies the defining characteristics of Trump’s second-term executive governance: retributive, erratic, and at times deeply unserious. While some executive orders have legitimate administrative value—streamlining military exports and reviewing outdated regulations—the overall presentation undermines their merit. Trump cloaks his administration’s legal and regulatory power in grievance politics, personal vendetta, and theatrical complaint. The result is a presidency that increasingly treats executive authority not as a mechanism of governance but as a cudgel for loyalty enforcement and political spectacle.
Donald Trump issued a series of executive actions targeting Susman Godfrey LLP, former CISA Director Christopher Krebs, and former DHS official Miles Taylor. Framed as measures to protect national security and uphold federal integrity, these directives instead reveal a deeply concerning pattern of executive overreach, politicized retribution, and a dangerous erosion of democratic norms. Rather than addressing verifiable misconduct through impartial processes, these orders appear designed to punish ideological opponents and critics of the Trump administration while weaponizing the machinery of the federal government in service of a political agenda.
The executive order concerning Susman Godfrey LLP accuses the firm of unlawful racial discrimination and undermining national security through its legal advocacy, support for diversity programs, and purported influence on military policy. The order directs agencies to terminate contracts, suspend security clearances, and limit employment opportunities for individuals associated with the firm. While cloaked in the language of legality and national interest, this move represents a disturbing attack on the independence of the legal profession and a misuse of executive power to suppress viewpoints the administration disfavors. The targeting of a private law firm for its litigation and philanthropic efforts—especially its promotion of racial equity—suggests not a principled objection to discrimination but a calculated effort to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives under the guise of civil rights enforcement. This order flips the purpose of anti-discrimination law on its head, using it to justify political purging rather than equal protection.
The memorandum regarding Christopher Krebs continues this theme of retroactive retaliation. It accuses Krebs of abusing his authority at CISA to censor conservative speech and of misleading the public about election integrity and COVID-19. The order calls for the revocation of his security clearance and a sweeping investigation into the agency’s activities over the past six years. This action is notable not only for its severity but for its timing: it targets a high-profile Trump critic who publicly contradicted the former president’s claims of a stolen election. By labeling Krebs’ debunking of conspiracy theories as misconduct, the administration engages in political revisionism and codifies falsehoods as official government doctrine. Moreover, it undermines the independence of agencies like CISA, which play a crucial role in election protection and cybersecurity. The order sends a clear message to current and former federal employees: contradict the administration’s narrative, and you may be punished with investigations and career-ending sanctions.
The memorandum targeting Miles Taylor completes the trifecta of personal and political retribution. Taylor is accused of leaking classified material, fabricating stories in his book Anonymous, and betraying his oath of service. Without presenting evidence or allowing for judicial review, the order unilaterally revokes Taylor’s clearance and directs an investigation into his conduct and associates—including his current affiliation with the University of Pennsylvania. This guilt-by-association approach extends the punishment beyond the individual, effectively blacklisting entire institutions for employing or collaborating with political dissidents. It also reinforces the administration’s habit of characterizing whistleblowing or dissent as treasonous behavior, invoking the Espionage Act without due process, and chilling future disclosures by federal employees.
Taken together, these actions reflect a deeply authoritarian impulse. By repurposing national security language to suppress opposition, the administration conflates dissent with disloyalty and erases the boundary between legitimate governance and political vendetta. Targeting legal professionals, former public servants, and academic institutions based on their speech or associations is antithetical to constitutional values. These orders undermine the First Amendment, delegitimize civil service neutrality, and threaten the independence of the legal system. In effect, they lay the groundwork for a federal government where political conformity is a condition of participation and disagreement is treated as a national security threat.
While the texts of the executive order and memoranda contain caveats noting that they create no legally enforceable rights, their impact is unmistakable. They signal to federal agencies that ideological alignment with the administration is paramount and that deviation may carry severe professional consequences. These directives are not about safeguarding democracy or national security but about consolidating power and silencing dissent. As such, they represent one of the most dangerous expansions of executive authority in the modern era and should be recognized for what they are: not acts of governance but acts of retribution.
Donald Trump’s Executive Order on Maintaining Acceptable Water Pressure in Showerheads is a textbook example of symbolic governance masquerading as serious policymaking. While the practical effect—rescinding a Department of Energy regulation defining “showerhead”—may appear small, the rhetoric and approach elevate it into a culture war issue. Trump frames the order as a liberation from what he calls the “Obama-Biden war on showers,” portraying technical water-efficiency standards as absurd examples of bureaucratic overreach. By contrasting a multi-thousand-word regulation with the Oxford English Dictionary’s short definition of “showerhead,” the order mocks the very idea that regulatory clarity and enforceability require legal precision—an intellectually dishonest sleight of hand. The legal procedure is similarly disregarded. The directive bypasses the standard notice-and-comment requirement under the Administrative Procedure Act, with Trump simply declaring such process “unnecessary because I am ordering the repeal.” This statement has no legal foundation; executive authority does not permit the circumvention of statutory requirements unless Congress has explicitly allowed it, which is not the case here. While theatrically effective, the move opens the administration to legal challenges and undermines administrative norms.
Furthermore, the order omits any discussion of the environmental or infrastructural consequences of deregulating water flow in consumer products. Showerhead efficiency rules exist to reduce waste, conserve water in drought-prone areas, and limit energy usage associated with water heating. By rolling them back under the guise of defending “freedom,” the administration prioritizes short-term political gain over long-term ecological stewardship. The entire framing is built not on policy needs or empirical analysis but on stoking grievance and signaling defiance toward “the deep state” and liberal environmentalism. This is governance by provocation, not by principle. Ultimately, the order achieves little in practical terms but much in cultivating a brand of populist defiance that treats regulation not as a public good to be managed but as a cultural enemy to be mocked. It is legally questionable, environmentally negligent, and intellectually unserious—a symbolic performance wrapped in executive authority.
Donald Trump issued an executive order, “Reducing Anti-Competitive Regulatory Barriers,” which is framed as a pro-competition measure but functions primarily as a broad deregulatory initiative. It directs agency heads to identify and recommend the rollback of regulations deemed to hinder competition—using vague, subjective criteria like “unnecessary barriers to entry” or “unduly limit competition.” While positioned as a way to promote innovation and entrepreneurship, the order assumes that most regulations inherently distort markets, ignoring the vital role many play in protecting consumers, ensuring safety, and maintaining fair practices.
Power is centralized in a small circle of political appointees—namely, the FTC Chair, the Attorney General, and Trump’s economic advisors—who will determine which regulations to repeal or modify, bypassing traditional independent regulatory processes. The order’s call for public input through a Request for Information appears more symbolic than substantive, with no binding obligation to consider responses. Tied to Trump's broader “government efficiency” agenda, the EO risks sweeping deregulation in critical sectors like healthcare, environmental protection, and procurement oversight.
This order uses the rhetoric of competition to justify dismantling key safeguards. Rather than improving market fairness, it paves the way for politicized deregulation that may erode consumer protections and professional standards under the guise of economic freedom.
Donald Trump’s executive order, Zero-Based Regulatory Budgeting to Unleash American Energy, is a sweeping deregulatory directive aimed at energy-related agencies such as the EPA, Department of Energy, and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. It mandates that these agencies apply automatic expiration—or “sunset”—clauses to their existing and future regulations unless those rules are explicitly reaffirmed through a formal review process. While the order frames this as a way to foster innovation and reduce bureaucratic stagnation, it effectively reverses the burden of proof: longstanding regulations must now be continually rejustified to remain in force. This approach risks eliminating important environmental and safety protections by default, not by design or data.
Legally, the order invites serious scrutiny. By forcing expiration timelines on regulations authorized by Congress under statutes like the Atomic Energy Act and the Endangered Species Act, it may conflict with legislative intent and run afoul of recent Supreme Court decisions limiting executive reinterpretation of major statutory frameworks. The mechanism sidesteps normal administrative procedure and may be viewed as executive overreach. Politically, the order rehashes familiar conservative talking points—casting regulation as inherently harmful to liberty and innovation—without providing substantive evidence that these regulations stifle economic growth or technological progress.
Administratively, the order creates an enormous burden. Agencies will now have to devote significant resources to repeatedly reviewing and defending their rules, even those with broad consensus support. This opens the door to regulatory lapses not due to merit but to understaffing or shifting political winds. The policy also risks destabilizing energy markets by creating regulatory uncertainty—particularly in capital-intensive sectors like nuclear and offshore drilling—where long-term predictability is essential. In sum, this executive order prioritizes ideological deregulation over regulatory stability, potentially undermining environmental protections, legal norms, and administrative functionality in the name of economic liberty.
Donald Trump issued a directive ordering all executive departments and agencies to begin the immediate repeal of existing federal regulations deemed unlawful or beyond the scope of statutory authority. This move builds on Executive Order 14219, issued in February, which launched the “Department of Government Efficiency” deregulatory initiative. The new memorandum underscores the administration’s commitment to economic growth and American innovation, asserting that outdated, unlawful, or overly burdensome regulations pose major obstacles to those goals. The directive specifically instructs agencies to prioritize repealing regulations that conflict with recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, which have redefined the constitutional limits of executive agency powers. Among the cases cited as guiding authorities are Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024), West Virginia v. EPA (2022), SEC v. Jarkesy (2024), and several others that have restricted the administrative state’s reach in areas like environmental policy, financial regulation, education, and religious liberty.
The memorandum authorizes agencies to repeal such regulations without undergoing the traditional notice-and-comment rulemaking process, invoking the “good cause” exception in the Administrative Procedure Act. According to the directive, this exception applies when adhering to regular procedures would be unnecessary or contrary to the public interest—conditions the administration argues are clearly met when regulations are already deemed facially unlawful. Agencies are thus empowered to act swiftly and decisively in rolling back rules invalidated or undermined by court precedent. Following the 60-day review period mandated in EO 14219, agencies must immediately move to repeal non-compliant regulations and provide a brief explanation for invoking the good cause exception. Additionally, within 30 days after that review period ends, agencies are required to submit a one-page summary to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs for each regulation flagged but not targeted for repeal, including a justification for that decision. This directive represents a major escalation in the Trump administration’s effort to dismantle regulatory frameworks built over prior administrations, using recent judicial decisions as the basis for legally bypassing procedural norms.
Donald Trump issued an executive order, "Restoring America’s Maritime Dominance," which lays out an ambitious, government-wide plan to rebuild the U.S. maritime industrial base, citing national security risks from decades of decline and competition from China, which now produces half the world’s commercial ships. The order calls for a comprehensive Maritime Action Plan involving nearly every major federal agency, aiming to expand shipbuilding capacity, incentivize private investment, strengthen the maritime workforce, and impose trade penalties on China. It also proposes new funding mechanisms, such as a Maritime Security Trust Fund, and outlines efforts to modernize training programs, streamline procurement, and reduce regulatory barriers.
While the EO correctly identifies vulnerabilities and articulates a bold vision, it suffers from contradictions and overreach. It promotes economic nationalism and deregulation while relying heavily on federal coordination, subsidies, and legislative proposals. Many of its goals—especially competing with China’s low-cost shipbuilding—seem economically unrealistic without permanent protectionism. Its proposed tariffs and border fees risk trade conflicts, particularly with Canada and Mexico. Additionally, the order omits any serious engagement with environmental goals or global maritime energy transitions. Ultimately, the EO is politically potent and rhetorically strong. Still, unless carefully managed and realistically scoped, it risks becoming a symbolic gesture rather than a practical path to maritime renewal.
Donald Trump’s executive order “Modernizing Defense Acquisitions and Spurring Innovation in the Defense Industrial Base” is framed as a push to streamline military procurement but ultimately serves as a deregulatory, pro-privatization initiative that consolidates executive control. It blames inefficiencies on bureaucratic mismanagement and proposes a sweeping overhaul centered on speed, flexibility, and commercial integration—prioritizing tools like Other Transactions Authority (OTA) that bypass traditional oversight mechanisms.
The order pushes for immediate use of commercial solutions and rapid acquisition pathways while calling for the elimination of internal regulations under a “ten-for-one” rule. It restructures the acquisition workforce around risk-taking and market-based performance metrics, introducing field training teams to promote this shift. Meanwhile, the mandated review of all major defense programs gives the White House budget office unprecedented influence over military priorities, allowing political considerations to shape funding and cancellations.
While some reform is justified, this order weakens safeguards, sidelines traditional oversight, and risks politicizing defense spending. It reflects Trump’s broader pattern of undermining bureaucratic norms in favor of executive authority and private-sector dominance.
Chief Justice John Roberts issued an administrative stay on Wednesday that allows President Trump to temporarily remove two Democratic appointees—Gwynne Wilcox of the National Labor Relations Board and Cathy Harris of the Merit Systems Protection Board—despite legal protections requiring cause for termination.
This stay reverses lower court decisions that had reinstated the officials and adds further instability to their positions amid ongoing legal battles. Both have now been fired, reinstated, and removed multiple times.
The Trump administration argues these removal protections are unconstitutional and is pushing the Supreme Court to bypass lower courts and decide this term whether presidents can fire members of independent agencies at will.
Roberts’s stay does not signal a final ruling but forces Wilcox and Harris to respond to the administration’s request by Tuesday, setting the stage for a potential major decision on the scope of presidential power over independent federal agencies.
A better title would be,”WTF DID THAT GODDAMNED IDIOT DO THIS TIME???”