What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
January 27, 2025 Recap
A press briefing held by Donald Trump—while ostensibly framed as a landmark legal and policy victory—exhibited all the hallmarks of an unstructured, bombastic, and deeply misleading performance. The President’s central claim, that the Supreme Court ruling marked a “monumental victory” for the Constitution and the rule of law, was immediately undermined by his tendency to blur legal nuance with political grievance. Rather than offer a sober reflection on the Court’s ruling regarding nationwide injunctions, Trump used the occasion to rail against "radical left judges," misrepresent judicial review as illegitimate obstruction, and conflate constitutional separation of powers with unchecked executive authority.
His praise for Justice Barrett’s majority opinion was less an analysis of legal reasoning than a celebration of judicial loyalty, reducing complex jurisprudence to personal validation. Trump’s depiction of judicial authority as “sick power” and his framing of nationwide injunctions as historical aberrations were also historically dishonest. Nationwide injunctions have been issued across administrations from both parties, often in response to sweeping executive actions with national consequences. The President’s comments ignored this precedent, presenting a revisionist narrative to suit his policy ambitions—chiefly ending birthright citizenship, halting transgender-related health coverage, and defunding sanctuary cities.
The supporting remarks by Attorney General Pam Bondi similarly adopted a combative tone, eschewing legal clarity in favor of ideological rhetoric. Bondi’s focus on the number of injunctions filed against Trump in “five liberal districts” betrayed a misunderstanding (or willful mischaracterization) of judicial impartiality, reducing judicial decisions to a form of political warfare. Her gleeful repetition of “no longer, no longer” suggested less a celebration of restored balance than a perceived conquest of the judiciary by the executive branch.
What followed was an incoherent and sprawling press conference, where Trump toggled between self-congratulation, factually dubious policy claims, and off-the-cuff foreign policy commentary. He asserted—without evidence—that illegal border crossings were “zero,” described the Iran strikes as surgically perfect, and invoked tariffs as a panacea for the U.S. economy, while simultaneously mocking the Federal Reserve. He suggested, with unexamined legal certainty, that birthright citizenship was intended only for “babies of slaves”—a historical claim that legal scholars across ideological lines have rejected as a misreading of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Trump’s invocation of tariffs, cryptocurrency, military operations, and education policy was delivered in a meandering monologue that favored political bravado over substantive governance. He weaponized the Court's ruling as a green light for executive dominance, rather than a clarification of legal procedure. Meanwhile, his responses to questions veered into self-aggrandizing anecdotes, vilification of political opponents, and applause-line catchphrases aimed more at rally audiences than informed press.
Ultimately, this briefing underscored a recurring feature of Trump-era public communication: the transformation of legal and policy processes into campaign spectacle. Instead of respecting the gravity of a constitutional ruling, Trump used it as an occasion to frame himself as a singular figure of triumph over institutional restraint. The result was not an affirmation of democratic principles, but a performance that trivialized them.
Donald Trump’s remarks during a visit with the foreign ministers of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Rwanda documented an event that was diplomatically significant but rhetorically chaotic. Although the occasion marked a historic peace agreement between two nations with a long and violent history of conflict, Trump’s delivery frequently detracted from the gravity of the moment. He repeatedly veered off-topic, interjecting unrelated commentary about domestic policies, trade disputes, the Federal Reserve, and personal grievances, often overshadowing the event’s central achievement.
Trump opened the meeting by introducing a journalist described vaguely as “from Africa,” and quickly pivoted into a patronizing and inappropriate aside about her appearance, calling her “beautiful” and joking that such comments might end his political career. This tone set a troubling precedent for the rest of the event, where he continued to oscillate between offhand flattery, self-congratulation, and unserious asides. His superficial reference to the geography of the Great Lakes region—asking whether it was “beautiful”—reflected a limited understanding of the conflict’s historical and regional complexities.
The president frequently cast himself as the sole architect of peace, claiming that past administrations “never tried” to resolve the conflict and suggesting he alone had the capability and will to succeed. While the peace agreement itself was a meaningful development, Trump diluted its impact by interjecting off-topic boasts—such as halting wars in India-Pakistan, Kosovo-Serbia, and Iran-Israel—without evidence or context. He made exaggerated and misleading claims, including that the DRC-Rwanda conflict was the deadliest since World War II and that the Biden administration allowed over 11,000 murderers into the U.S.—a baseless statistic.
Throughout the event, Trump repeatedly shifted focus to his grievances with the media, the Federal Reserve, Canada, and Europe. He launched an extended tirade against Fed Chair Jerome Powell, calling him “a stupid person” and “a stubborn mule,” and blamed him for failing to lower interest rates. He also digressed into Canada’s dairy tariffs and the European Union’s treatment of tech companies, using language that was undiplomatic and, at times, hostile. These interruptions overwhelmed the official purpose of the event and muddled the intended diplomatic messaging.
Despite attempts by Rwandan and Congolese officials to emphasize the importance of implementation, economic integration, and long-term cooperation, Trump continued to steer the conversation toward self-praise and domestic political narratives. He handed out commemorative coins, joked about naming the agreement after himself, and remarked that other people in the official photo “looked better than me.” Even during moments that should have celebrated peace and international cooperation, he remained focused on optics and personal vindication.
While the peace agreement between the DRC and Rwanda marked a substantive diplomatic milestone, Trump’s rhetoric during the event was erratic, self-serving, and riddled with inappropriate digressions. His conduct failed to reflect the seriousness of the moment, and instead turned a historic achievement into a platform for personal aggrandizement and political score-settling. The result was a chaotic presentation that undercut the very accomplishment it was meant to highlight.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 to partially lift nationwide injunctions that had blocked President Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to undocumented or temporary residents. The Court upheld the constitutionality of limiting federal judges' use of universal or nationwide injunctions, but did not decide whether Trump’s executive order itself is constitutional.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, argued that federal courts lack the historical and legal authority to issue nationwide injunctions, emphasizing that courts are meant to resolve disputes between parties, not broadly oversee executive actions. The ruling allows enforcement of Trump’s order to proceed in most cases after a 30-day delay, although pregnant plaintiffs already involved in litigation remain temporarily protected.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, dissenting strongly and reading from the bench, accused the majority of undermining constitutional protections for individuals not party to lawsuits. She argued the decision effectively prevents courts from halting even clearly unlawful policies unless class-action litigation is initiated. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson added that the ruling dangerously enables constitutional violations by the Executive Branch against anyone who hasn’t sued.
Concurring opinions from Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Alito, and Kavanaugh focused on reining in judicial overreach while cautioning against potential loopholes via lax class-action certification. Alito specifically warned that failing to enforce procedural safeguards could undermine the Court’s ruling.
The Court's decision stems from Trump’s January 2025 executive order, which aims to end automatic citizenship for U.S.-born children of noncitizens. Lower court judges in Washington, Maryland, and Massachusetts had blocked the order, calling it “blatantly unconstitutional” under the 14th Amendment. That amendment—enacted in 1868 after the Civil War—explicitly guarantees citizenship to those born in the United States, a principle affirmed in the 1898 Wong Kim Ark case.
The Supreme Court’s ruling leaves room for future litigation in lower courts to determine how narrow any injunctions should be, especially for state plaintiffs who argue the order will strain administrative systems tied to verifying citizenship for public benefits.
Ultimately, the ruling significantly curtails the judiciary’s power to issue broad protections against federal policies and may limit relief to only named plaintiffs unless class-action mechanisms are quickly mobilized.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced that Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for over 500,000 Haitians will end on September 2, continuing the Trump administration’s broader effort to roll back protections for migrants. This move follows earlier decisions by Noem to terminate TPS for Venezuelans, Afghans, and Cameroonians. The Supreme Court recently allowed the administration to proceed with ending TPS for Venezuelans and to revoke parole for migrants from several countries, including Haiti. TPS, established in 1990, offers temporary legal status to people from countries facing crises but requires frequent renewal and does not guarantee long-term residency. Critics note the insecurity and burdens TPS recipients face, as Trump revives efforts to dismantle the program after being blocked by courts during his first term.
A federal judge, Loren AliKhan, struck down President Trump’s executive order targeting the law firm Susman Godfrey, ruling it “unconstitutional from beginning to end.” This marks the fourth consecutive legal defeat for the Trump administration in its efforts to punish major law firms via executive action. Like previous rulings involving Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale, the decision permanently blocks enforcement of the order.
The court found that the executive orders violated the First and Fifth Amendments, characterizing them as a broader assault on the legal profession and the U.S. justice system. Judges appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents strongly rebuked the administration’s unprecedented targeting of firms based on political opposition or past associations, such as hiring Robert Mueller.
The Trump administration imposed sanctions, including revoking security clearances, banning firm access to federal buildings, and canceling contracts. While some firms challenged the orders and won in court, at least nine others reportedly cut deals with the administration to avoid targeting, agreeing to provide pro bono work for causes favored by Trump.
Legal scholars, such as Timothy Zick, argue these deals are legally dubious and reflect political pressure rather than legitimate governance. Zick also noted that the administration seems indifferent to the constitutionality of the orders, preferring to scapegoat judges when they are struck down. The outcome has raised questions about the future reputations of firms that either resisted or capitulated to the administration’s pressure.
The Justice Department under President Trump fired at least three prosecutors on Friday who were involved in the criminal cases related to the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot. Among those dismissed were two supervisory attorneys and one line prosecutor from the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington. The termination letters, signed by Attorney General Pam Bondi, gave no specific reasons, citing only constitutional authority.
These firings are part of a broader pattern of purging career DOJ officials seen as disloyal or connected to prosecutions of Trump or his supporters. The moves follow Trump’s sweeping pardons of all January 6 rioters on his first day back in office, including those convicted of seditious conspiracy and assaulting police. Earlier this year, the DOJ had already demoted several key prosecutors from the Capitol Siege Section and terminated around two dozen temporary hires who worked on January 6 cases.
These actions have raised serious concerns about the politicization of the Justice Department, the undermining of civil service protections, and the erosion of its independence from the White House.