What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
February 20, 2025 Recap
President Trump's executive order, "Commencing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy," seeks to downsize the federal government by eliminating various agencies, advisory committees, and programs deemed unnecessary. The order presents several concerns regarding its execution, rationale, and potential long-term consequences. The lack of a clear, transparent methodology for determining which agencies are unnecessary raises questions about whether these cuts are based on objective performance metrics or ideological preferences. Without a systematic evaluation process, there is a risk that essential government functions could be weakened or eliminated without a thorough understanding of their impact.
One of the most troubling aspects of the order is its potential to undermine U.S. diplomatic and humanitarian efforts. Agencies such as the United States Institute of Peace (USIP) and the Inter-American Foundation (IAF) play significant roles in international conflict resolution, development aid, and diplomacy. The USIP, for example, helps prevent conflicts before they escalate into military engagements, ultimately saving taxpayer dollars and American lives. Similarly, the IAF and the U.S. African Development Foundation support economic growth in Latin America and Africa, strengthening international partnerships and reducing instability in regions critical to U.S. interests. Eliminating these organizations could weaken American soft power and diminish the effectiveness of U.S. foreign aid programs, potentially creating long-term security and economic challenges.
The executive order also calls for the termination of multiple Federal Advisory Committees, including the Health Equity Advisory Committee and the Advisory Committee on Long COVID. These committees provide specialized knowledge and public input on pressing policy issues, particularly in public health and economic policy. Disbanding them could leave government agencies with less expert guidance, weakening evidence-based policymaking. For example, the removal of the Advisory Committee on Long COVID is particularly concerning, as millions of Americans continue to struggle with long-term health complications from the pandemic. Without dedicated advisory bodies, the government risks overlooking critical public health needs and failing to address ongoing crises adequately.
Ironically, while the order claims to enhance government efficiency, it may actually hinder it. Programs like the Presidential Management Fellows Program (PMF), which recruits top talent into federal service, are instrumental in maintaining a competent and effective government workforce. Eliminating PMF could make it more difficult to attract skilled professionals, exacerbating existing workforce shortages in federal agencies. Additionally, the order dismantles the Federal Executive Boards (FEBs), which help coordinate federal activities across different agencies, particularly in regional emergency response and workforce development. Removing these coordinating entities could lead to greater fragmentation within the federal government, making disaster response and interagency cooperation more difficult.
Another issue with the order is its rushed and potentially politicized decision-making process. The directive to identify additional “unnecessary” agencies within 30 days suggests an arbitrary and politically motivated approach rather than a deliberate, data-driven effort to improve efficiency. Moreover, revoking the 1961 Presidential Memorandum on Regional Coordination without a replacement strategy could weaken federal-state collaboration in critical areas such as economic development and disaster preparedness. The absence of congressional or public input in these eliminations raises concerns about executive overreach and a lack of democratic accountability in determining which agencies should be cut.
While reducing government waste is a valid and necessary goal, this executive order lacks transparency, strategic evaluation, and consideration of long-term consequences. By eliminating organizations that play vital roles in diplomacy, public health, workforce development, and federal coordination, the administration risks creating policy blind spots and weakening government expertise.
The confirmation of Kash Patel as FBI Director is a troubling development that threatens the agency’s independence. Approved by a narrow 51-49 vote, Patel—a staunch Trump loyalist with no senior law enforcement experience—brings partisan rhetoric and a history of attacking the FBI to the role. Unlike past directors, who received broad bipartisan support, Patel’s appointment reflects political loyalty over qualifications.
Throughout his career, Patel has promoted conspiracy theories, vowed to dismantle the FBI, and shown a willingness to target political opponents. His past statements about shutting down FBI headquarters and his deep alignment with Trump raise concerns that he will politicize federal law enforcement rather than uphold impartial justice. Though Republicans argue Patel will restore trust in the FBI, their reasoning is hypocritical, as Patel himself has a record of partisan attacks and political retribution.
Democrats strongly opposed his nomination, with Senator Dick Durbin calling him “a political and national security disaster.” The FBI’s traditional independence is at risk, as Patel’s confirmation suggests the agency could become a tool for political loyalty rather than a defender of the rule of law. His tenure is expected to be volatile, controversial, and potentially damaging to democratic institutions.
A federal judge ruled that the Trump administration can continue mass layoffs of federal employees, rejecting a labor union lawsuit attempting to halt the firings. The decision is temporary as the litigation continues. Still, it represents a win for Trump's efforts to reduce the 2.3 million-strong federal workforce and cut what the administration considers wasteful spending.
The lawsuit, filed by the National Treasury Employees Union and others, aimed to stop mass layoffs and voluntary buyouts across multiple agencies, including the Department of Defense and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The judge stated that he likely lacked jurisdiction and that the unions must seek recourse through a federal labor board instead.
Trump appointed Elon Musk to lead the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which has been aggressively cutting jobs and programs. Termination emails were sent to probationary employees across various federal agencies, while around 75,000 workers accepted buyout offers.
The unions argue that the layoffs undermine Congress’ authority and harm them financially by reducing dues-paying members. They are seeking a court ruling to declare the firings illegal. However, the government contends that the unions lack standing to sue, and another federal judge recently upheld the buyouts.
This case is among over 70 lawsuits challenging Trump’s broader policy agenda, with courts issuing mixed rulings on his workforce reductions, immigration crackdowns, and transgender rights rollbacks.
Today’s press briefing by Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett, and National Security Advisor Mike Waltz presents an over-the-top and highly partisan portrayal of the Trump administration’s first month in office, filled with exaggerated claims, a triumphalist tone, and a lack of substantive engagement with policy complexities. Officials repeatedly describe their achievements as “historic,” “unmatched in American history,” and even claim that President Trump has accomplished “eight years of transformative action” in just one month. Such hyperbolic language is clearly designed for political effect rather than an honest assessment of progress, and it disregards the fact that many of these executive orders will face legal, logistical, and bureaucratic challenges.
The policy descriptions offered in the briefing are often vague, one-sided, or misleading. For instance, claims that the administration has “sealed the border” and “ended DEI” lack substantive discussion on the enforcement mechanisms, potential lawsuits, or broader consequences of these decisions. The announcement that every federal worker involved in DEI has been terminated suggests a radical purge that is unlikely to be legally feasible given civil service protections. Additionally, symbolic moves such as renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the “Gulf of America” and Mount Denali back to Mount McKinley appear to be aimed more at political theatrics than meaningful policy changes, likely sparking backlash from Indigenous communities and international partners.
On economic policy, Kevin Hassett blames inflation entirely on the Biden administration while ignoring global economic factors, the impact of the pandemic, and supply chain disruptions. He promotes spending cuts as a solution to inflation but does not address the complexities of monetary policy, interest rates, or potential economic downsides of aggressive federal budget reductions. His claim that tariff revenues could fully replace income taxes is economically dubious, as tariffs typically lead to higher consumer costs and retaliation from trading partners. Rather than a pragmatic economic plan, the discussion seems tailored to reinforce Trump’s preferred political narratives.
The administration’s foreign policy messaging is similarly slanted, presenting Trump as the sole leader capable of brokering peace in Ukraine while portraying European allies as unreliable partners who must be forced to contribute more. Waltz’s assertion that only Trump can “bring both sides to the table” disregards the agency of Ukraine, Russia, and NATO in the conflict. Furthermore, the administration touts a tough stance against Putin while failing to acknowledge Trump’s past praise of the Russian leader. The briefing also boasts about Trump’s foreign policy successes while sidestepping any concrete discussions on how diplomacy, sanctions, and military aid will be handled moving forward.
In terms of media relations, the briefing simultaneously claims transparency while favoring friendly media outlets, notably highlighting X (formerly Twitter) as a preferred platform. While the administration insists that Trump has been more available to the press than past presidents, it also repeatedly jabs traditional media, suggesting an ongoing effort to bypass mainstream journalism in favor of curated narratives. The emphasis on “new media” over traditional press outlets suggests an attempt to control messaging rather than genuinely engage with independent scrutiny.
Ultimately, this briefing reads more like a political rally than a serious policy discussion. It is packed with grandiose claims, partisan attacks, and a lack of engagement with dissenting views or legal realities. While some concrete initiatives are mentioned—such as the designation of Mexican cartels as terrorist organizations and fiscal reform efforts—they are overshadowed by ideological posturing and self-congratulatory rhetoric. The briefing offers little meaningful policy debate for an administration that claims to prioritize transparency and efficiency. Instead, it serves as a public relations exercise aimed at reinforcing a predetermined narrative.
President Trump's speech at the Black History Month reception at the White House ultimately fell short of delivering a meaningful tribute to Black history. The speech began with an attempt to acknowledge the contributions of Black Americans, referencing historical figures such as Harriet Tubman, Martin Luther King Jr., and Booker T. Washington. Additionally, Trump personally engaged with attendees, addressing individuals by name and praising their achievements, which created an informal and conversational atmosphere that resonated with his supporters. His mention of policies such as Opportunity Zones highlighted his administration’s efforts toward economic empowerment in Black communities.
However, the speech was significantly weakened by its lack of focus, frequent self-promotion, and disjointed structure. Instead of maintaining a consistent emphasis on Black history, Trump repeatedly shifted the conversation to unrelated topics, including golf, economic policies, and his administration’s achievements. This tendency diluted the event's intended purpose, making it feel more like a campaign rally than a serious commemoration. Additionally, his framing of Black support—often emphasizing how it benefited his presidency rather than discussing the broader significance of Black contributions—came across as self-serving rather than genuinely celebratory.
Another critical issue was Trump’s minimization of systemic racism. While he briefly acknowledged slavery and civil rights struggles, he quickly pivoted to discussing his policies, failing to engage with the complexities of Black history in a substantive way. His dismissive reference to the 1619 Project in favor of 1776 simplified historical discourse and suggested an avoidance of difficult but necessary conversations about racial injustice. Furthermore, his casual and sometimes inappropriate remarks, such as joking about adding Tiger Woods to a statue garden, trivialized the event's significance and detracted from the gravity of the occasion.
The speech also suffered from excessive self-praise and hyperbole. While recognizing individual achievements is common in political addresses, Trump's frequent claims of being the greatest or having done more than any other administration weakened the sincerity of his message. Instead of focusing on Black Americans' rich and complex history, he consistently redirected the spotlight onto himself and his successes.
Vice President Vance’s CPAC speech served as both a celebration of the first month of the Trump-Vance administration and a reaffirmation of their political agenda. However, his emphasis on sweeping victories in areas like border security and economic growth was largely unsupported by specific data or policy details.
His sharp attacks on mainstream media, particularly CNN, and his criticism of European leaders for their handling of migration issues played well with the CPAC crowd. By framing the administration’s actions as a necessary and urgent correction to the alleged failures of the previous four years, Vance effectively stoked enthusiasm among supporters.
The speech suffered from a lack of policy specifics. While Vance claimed that border crossings had dropped by over 90% and that Trump had done more on energy than any administration in history, he provided no concrete data to support these assertions. Such hyperbolic statements may excite the base but weaken credibility among a broader audience seeking verifiable progress. Additionally, his assertion that the administration would fix inflation and economic instability caused by Biden ignored the complexities of economic policy, offering simplistic solutions like “drill baby drill” and cutting government spending without detailing implementation strategies.
Partisan attacks were another defining feature of the speech, often overshadowing substantive policy discussions. While expected in a political rally setting, the relentless vilification of Democrats, the media, and even European allies made the address feel more like a campaign event than a governing update. His remarks on free speech, for example, were contradictory; he decried censorship in Europe and under Biden while simultaneously advocating for a rigid cultural conservatism that seemed to call for state-driven enforcement of traditional gender norms. His rhetoric about masculinity, in particular, framed cultural shifts as existential threats rather than areas for nuanced discussion.
Foreign policy, though a secondary focus, was handled with similar ambiguity. Vance claimed that Trump would bring lasting peace to Europe but provided no clear strategy for achieving that goal. While his critique of European reliance on U.S. military support was valid, he did not articulate how the administration would balance reducing military commitments with maintaining strong alliances. His position on Russia and Ukraine suggested a willingness to negotiate, yet lacked any concrete proposals beyond vague assurances of Trump’s negotiating skills.
Vance’s speech was an effective rallying cry for the MAGA base but lacked the depth necessary for a serious policy address. While his reliance on exaggerated claims and partisan rhetoric energized CPAC attendees, it leaves open questions about the administration’s ability to translate broad ambitions into actionable governance.
Newly confirmed U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. addressed a packed room of federal health workers on Tuesday, signaling a significant shift in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) by pledging to investigate potential causes of chronic disease. Among the factors he plans to scrutinize are childhood vaccinations and antidepressant medications—topics that have long been considered settled science. Emphasizing that “nothing is going to be off limits,” Kennedy assured his audience that he would use the agency’s vast resources to revisit these issues and convene experts from all viewpoints. His remarks suggest a willingness to challenge established public health policies, raising concerns among health professionals about the potential consequences of such an approach.
During his speech, Kennedy outlined several areas he believes require further investigation. Among them are the childhood vaccine schedule, SSRI and other psychiatric medications, electromagnetic radiation, herbicides and pesticides, ultra-processed foods, artificial food additives and allergens, microplastics, and long-lasting industrial chemicals such as those used in non-stick cookware. While research on environmental toxins is ongoing, the claim that vaccines or antidepressants contribute to chronic diseases such as autism or obesity is not supported by credible scientific evidence. Despite this, Kennedy’s willingness to reexamine the vaccine schedule contradicts his testimony before the Senate in January, where he stated he supported the federal vaccination schedule and "good science."
Kennedy’s speech also occurred amid widespread firings and resignations across federal agencies, including reports that 700 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) employees were dismissed last week. However, HHS has not provided details on these personnel changes, leaving the full impact unclear. His address, which was initially intended for HHS staff only, was live-streamed and widely circulated. Employees were invited to meet him afterward, with an emailed invitation noting that “selfies are welcome!”
Public health experts have expressed concerns that Kennedy’s rhetoric could undermine trust in vaccines and psychiatric medications, particularly given his history of promoting debunked claims that vaccines cause autism. Numerous large-scale studies have found no connection between vaccines and autism, yet Kennedy has continued to question their safety. While scientists continue to explore the effects of environmental toxins and processed foods on chronic disease, Kennedy’s inclusion of vaccines and SSRIs in the conversation suggests a broader skepticism toward the pharmaceutical industry and regulatory agencies.
His leadership at HHS signals a potential shift in federal health policy, one that could have far-reaching consequences. While his supporters may view his approach as an effort to broaden scientific inquiry, critics argue that his statements could erode public confidence in well-established health recommendations. If Kennedy follows through on his investigations, it could lead to renewed debates over vaccination policies and medication safety, despite overwhelming scientific consensus supporting their benefits.
National Security Advisor Mike Waltz spoke to host Brian Kilmeade on a segment of Fox and Friends, attempting to cast President Trump as the sole leader capable of ending the Ukraine-Russia war. Still, it does so through a mix of contradictions, oversimplifications, and political posturing that undermine its credibility. The repeated assertion that "only Trump can end the war" is an exaggerated and unverified claim that ignores the complexities of international diplomacy. This suggests that both Putin and Zelenskyy have acknowledged that Trump’s unique ability to broker peace lacks supporting evidence and oversimplifies a conflict that involves multiple nations, alliances, and deeply entrenched geopolitical interests.
Furthermore, the discussion portrays Ukraine as unreasonable for resisting Trump's proposed "economic partnership" without addressing the legitimate concerns of a nation fighting for its survival. The notion that U.S. investment in Ukraine’s economy is a better security guarantee than continued military aid ignores Russia’s history of violating agreements and expanding aggression. By pushing the idea that Ukraine should simply accept whatever deal Trump presents, the segment downplays the stakes for a country that has already lost significant territory and lives to Russian aggression.
Additionally, criticism of Trump’s approach is dismissed as "squawking," with Waltz and the hosts painting dissenting views as irrational or unserious. This rhetoric sidesteps substantive concerns about the feasibility and risks of Trump’s proposed negotiations, instead framing Democratic skepticism as partisan hysteria. The discussion also engages in revisionist history by selectively praising Trump for arming Ukraine while ignoring his previous attempts to withhold aid for political leverage, which led to his first impeachment.
Notably, the segment briefly touches on Russia’s war crimes, including the kidnapping of Ukrainian children, but does not meaningfully engage with the issue. Waltz quickly pivots away from this topic, failing to explain how Trump's plan would hold Russia accountable or ensure justice for Ukraine. The conversation also makes vague and unverified claims about Trump personally negotiating with both Putin and Zelenskyy, suggesting a diplomatic breakthrough without offering concrete details or evidence.
Ultimately, this segment functions more as a Trump promotional piece than a serious analysis of the Ukraine-Russia war. It relies on emotional appeals, oversimplified narratives, and a selective retelling of history while failing to address the fundamental challenges of achieving lasting peace.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has directed senior Pentagon officials to develop plans for an 8% annual cut to the defense budget over the next five years, potentially reducing military spending by $50 billion. The proposed cuts, outlined in a memo issued Tuesday, would scale back operations in the Middle East and Europe while preserving key programs like nuclear modernization, Virginia-class submarines, missile defense, and cybersecurity. Acting Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Salesses stated that the cuts would help fund priorities such as border security and the "Iron Dome for America" missile defense system, emphasizing a shift away from expenditures on diversity, equity, inclusion (DEI) initiatives, and climate programs. While Hegseth and the administration push for reductions, many lawmakers in Congress oppose them, arguing that maintaining or increasing defense funding is crucial to counter threats from China and Russia.
The memo also comes amid broader personnel changes at the Pentagon, with reports indicating that the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is reviewing lists of probationary employees, some of whom may be terminated soon. Additionally, Hegseth is considering dismissing several high-ranking military officials, including Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. CQ Brown and Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa M. Franchetti, who have ties to DEI initiatives. The administration reportedly seeks to replace Brown with Gen. Michael Kurilla or Gen. Samuel Paparo. These moves align with Hegseth’s call for a renewed focus on warfighting and military efficiency, though they could face pushback from both military leadership and Congress.
Elon Musk’s appearance at CPAC was more of a performative spectacle than a substantive policy discussion, marked by grandiose claims, populist rhetoric, and grievance politics. His remarks often meandered between internet meme culture, libertarian ideals, and sweeping generalizations about government inefficiency and media corruption without offering detailed solutions.
One of the most striking aspects of his speech was the lack of depth. While Musk criticized government waste, immigration policies, and free speech restrictions, he provided few concrete solutions beyond vague calls for cutting spending and restoring freedoms. His sweeping accusations—that billions of tax dollars are funding “fake” left-wing movements or that the Biden administration deliberately kept astronauts in space to deny him credit—were not backed by evidence. This pattern of exaggeration and conspiracy-tinged rhetoric made his speech an exercise in political theater.
Musk also leaned heavily into populist grievance politics, positioning himself as a champion against the so-called “deep state” and entrenched bureaucracy. However, this stance is riddled with contradictions. While he criticized government intervention, his companies have significantly benefited from federal contracts and subsidies. His advocacy for free speech is complicated by his own selective moderation on X (formerly Twitter), where he has both defended openness and enforced content bans based on shifting criteria. These inconsistencies raise questions about whether his political alignment is driven by genuine conviction or self-interest.
Musk’s hyperbolic rhetoric was on full display in his claims about immigration and societal collapse in Europe. His assertion that illegal immigration is part of a voter-importation scheme was presented as an unquestioned truth rather than a debated policy issue. Similarly, his complaints about cancel culture and the alleged criminalization of comedy were overstated, playing into a broader narrative of cultural victimhood rather than addressing real political challenges.
Ultimately, Musk’s CPAC speech lacked the intellectual rigor and depth expected of a serious political thinker. Instead, he indulged in populist tropes, reinforcing an “us vs. them” narrative that plays well to his base but does little to advance meaningful discussions on governance.
Everything everywhere all at once. In one Substack. Amazing.