What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
Weekend Recap: May 17th & 18th, 2025
Donald Trump’s series of weekend Truth Social posts reflects a dangerous combination of conspiracy mongering, misinformation, and authoritarian undertones that continue to undermine democratic institutions and public trust. His opening tirade about the “AUTOPEN” being part of a vast criminal conspiracy tied to the 2020 election is incoherent and deeply misleading. The autopen, a mechanical device used for routine presidential signatures, is weaponized here as a symbolic scapegoat in Trump’s long-running false narrative that the election was “rigged and stolen.” This is yet another baseless attempt to breathe new life into a conspiracy theory that has already been debunked by bipartisan election officials, audits, and over 60 court rulings. His aggressive tone and repeated declaration that “EVERYONE KNOWS” he won the election by millions of votes is not only false but serves to justify anti-democratic behavior and erode faith in the electoral process.
In another post, Trump lashes out at Walmart for attributing price increases to tariffs, suggesting instead that the company should “EAT THE TARIFFS” because of its large profits. This reflects a shallow understanding of basic economic principles. Tariffs are taxes imposed on imported goods and inevitably raise costs for businesses and consumers alike. Trump’s demand that Walmart absorb those costs without passing them on ignores how supply chains and pricing actually work. Rather than offering a reasoned critique of inflation or corporate behavior, he defaults to populist scapegoating and economic threats.
Perhaps the most surreal element of the posts is President Trump’s announcement that he will speak by telephone with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in an effort to broker a ceasefire in the ongoing war. While presidential diplomacy is part of his official duties, the way Trump frames the announcement—highlighting his personal role in scheduling the calls and referring to it as a “productive day”—suggests a highly transactional and self-congratulatory view of international conflict resolution. His characterization of the war as a “bloodbath” that “should have never happened” sidesteps the complexity of the geopolitical crisis and oversimplifies the stakes involved. Moreover, Trump's repeated focus on personal negotiations over multilateral coordination risks sidelining institutions like NATO and the State Department, which are designed to manage these complex engagements with consistency and strategic depth. The post reads more like a campaign press release than a measured expression of statesmanship, reinforcing concerns about the performative and unilateral nature of Trump’s approach to foreign policy.
Trump also takes aim at Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, calling him “Too Late Powell” and accusing him of failing to cut interest rates quickly enough. This is consistent with Trump’s pattern of publicly pressuring the Fed, an institution designed to operate independently from political interference. His call for rapid rate cuts without regard to inflationary pressures reveals a preference for short-term political gain over long-term economic stability.
Trump’s decision to amplify the long-debunked “Clinton Body Count” conspiracy theory by sharing a video linking the Clintons to a series of unrelated deaths is reckless, defamatory, and morally indefensible. The individuals named in the video—John F. Kennedy Jr., Vince Foster, Seth Rich, and others—have all been the subject of thorough investigations, and no credible evidence has ever linked the Clintons to their deaths. Reviving such a grotesque and unfounded narrative not only inflicts further pain on the victims’ families but also fuels a toxic ecosystem of paranoia and hate. This is not political discourse; it is propaganda masquerading as outrage.
This morning, Trump continued his pattern of media intimidation, factual distortion, and inflammatory rhetoric. By urging Disney Chairman Bob Iger to intervene in ABC News coverage, Trump challenges press freedom and suggests corporate censorship of unfavorable reporting. His claim of a $16 million legal win over George Stephanopoulos is misleading, as no such verdict has been confirmed. The use of juvenile insults like “Liddle’ George Slopadopolus” demeans the office and substitutes mockery for substance.
Trump’s defense of a Boeing 747 donation from Qatar misrepresents the controversy. While he insists the plane is for the U.S. Air Force, not himself, the public concern stems from the lack of transparency and the diplomatic optics, not the technical ownership. His praise of Qatar as “saving taxpayers” serves as thinly veiled propaganda.
Most troubling is his repeated “fair warning” to ABC, which reads as a threat rather than a critique. Such language from a sitting president is authoritarian in tone and corrosive to democratic norms.
Taken together, these posts illustrate Trump’s continued reliance on conspiracy, grievance, and spectacle to maintain relevance and control. They offer no policy solutions, no vision for the country, and no respect for democratic norms—only a constant drumbeat of division and deceit. These aren’t merely the rantings of a disgruntled president; they are a calculated assault on truth and accountability in American political life.
Sources: Truth Social and Times Now News
Secretary of State Marco Rubio spoke with Margaret Brennan on Face the Nation in an interview that revealed a foreign policy approach marked by contradiction, political messaging, and a concerning detachment from institutional intelligence. When discussing the Vatican’s offer to mediate between Ukraine and Russia, Rubio struck a diplomatic tone, calling the offer “generous” and suggesting that talks might soon become more productive. However, when pressed about Vladimir Putin’s absence from recent negotiations in Istanbul, Rubio retreated into ambiguity, stating he was “not a spokesperson for the Kremlin.” While he alluded to upcoming proposals from both sides, his optimism was largely unsubstantiated, relying on the vague potential of “papers” that had yet to materialize. This equivocation undermined the administration’s assertion that it was losing patience with Russia, suggesting a reactive rather than strategic approach.
Rubio further muddled the message by simultaneously claiming that the U.S. was no longer actively pursuing talks while emphasizing the importance of a direct meeting between President Trump and Putin. The idea that the administration was merely responding to meetings rather than initiating them contrasted with his admission that officials were actively working to set up high-level dialogue. This inconsistency reflected a lack of diplomatic clarity and revealed an administration unsure whether to project assertiveness or restraint. His commentary on prisoner exchanges and ceasefire frameworks, while superficially constructive, lacked detail and reinforced the impression that the administration was improvising rather than leading.
Perhaps most troubling was Rubio’s outright rejection of the National Intelligence Council’s assessment that the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua was not a proxy of the Maduro regime. Rubio instead sided with the FBI, citing a murder-for-hire case as proof of government sponsorship. While it was true that Tren de Aragua posed a transnational threat, conflating criminal activity with formal state control was misleading. His comments suggested a political agenda: to portray Venezuela as a state sponsor of terrorism regardless of the intelligence consensus. This had real implications, particularly in justifying deportation policies and heightened sanctions. His sweeping claims lacked transparency and raised concerns about policymaking rooted in ideology rather than intelligence.
Rubio’s framing of white Afrikaners as victims of race-based persecution was another example of racialized policymaking. He sidestepped the question of genocide determination, instead asserting that people were fleeing “on the basis of their race” and that the U.S. should welcome them. This was a deeply politicized and selective application of refugee policy, particularly when compared to the administration’s hostility toward other asylum seekers. Rubio painted the Afrikaners as model refugees, invoking a narrative of dispossession without offering evidence of systemic genocide. His remarks echoed far-right talking points and risked legitimizing racially biased immigration preferences.
On the conflict in Gaza, Rubio walked a rhetorical tightrope, professing support for Israel’s security while expressing sympathy for civilian suffering. Yet, he placed sole responsibility for that suffering on Hamas, ignoring Israel’s role in high-profile incidents like the bombing of a hospital that killed 70 civilians. His claim that the war could end immediately if Hamas surrendered reduced the conflict to a simplistic binary and overlooked the structural and humanitarian complexities at play. Rubio insisted that the U.S. was working tirelessly toward a ceasefire, while continuing to support Israel’s operations unconditionally, revealing a diplomacy built on euphemism rather than accountability.
Rubio’s comments on Iran further exposed the administration’s contradictory stance. He declared that any level of uranium enrichment was unacceptable, despite the fact that low-level enrichment was permitted under international law for civilian use. While claiming Trump was a “builder, not a bomber,” Rubio omitted the administration’s history of military escalation and maximalist sanctions. The rhetoric of peace was undermined by an approach that offered no realistic diplomatic off-ramp. The insistence that Iran “would never have a nuclear weapon” was not accompanied by any details about how this goal would be achieved short of coercion.
Rubio presented a foreign policy that was disjointed, ideologically driven, and often in conflict with established facts and intelligence assessments. His demeanor was composed, but the substance of his answers revealed a government more focused on managing political optics than advancing coherent or principled diplomacy. From Russia and Venezuela to Gaza and Iran, Rubio offered a worldview rooted in partisan logic, selectively applied values, and a disregard for institutional consensus—hallmarks of an administration increasingly untethered from traditional standards of international leadership.
CNN’s Jake Tapper’s interview with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on State of the Union attempted to clarify the Trump administration’s approach to pressing economic issues, but Bessent’s responses largely reflected evasiveness, inconsistency, and troubling rationalizations. When asked about Moody’s downgrade of the U.S. credit rating, Bessent dismissed the warning as irrelevant, arguing that markets had already priced it in. He deflected further by citing Trump’s recent Middle East trip and unsubstantiated claims of “trillions” in incoming investment. This redirection avoided addressing fundamental concerns about rising interest payments and mounting national debt, undermining confidence in the administration’s fiscal responsibility.
On trade and tariffs, Bessent’s explanation of the administration’s policy was incoherent and contradictory. He referenced a 90-day pause affecting 150 countries—an implausibly large figure—and framed the uncertainty facing small businesses as a “strategic” tool. Rather than provide clarity, Bessent seemed to embrace instability as a negotiation tactic, disregarding the impact on domestic producers and retailers. His description of tariff reductions following escalated trade conflicts, particularly with China, was dense and confusing, leaving little assurance that the administration has a coherent, stable plan for managing global trade relationships.
Bessent’s attempt to refute criticism that tariffs function as taxes on consumers was unconvincing. When Tapper pointed out that Walmart had announced price increases due to tariffs, Bessent minimized the issue, claiming the company was exaggerating for regulatory reasons and suggesting Trump’s tax cuts would offset inflation. This rhetorical sleight-of-hand sidestepped the core contradiction: while Trump claims foreign nations pay tariffs, American consumers are clearly feeling the costs. Bessent’s refusal to confront this economic reality underscores the administration’s reliance on messaging over substance.
Perhaps most concerning was Bessent’s response to questions about the Qatari government’s gift of a $400 million luxury jet to President Trump. Rather than engage with the serious ethical and national security implications, Bessent dismissed the criticism by drawing inappropriate comparisons to historical gifts like the Statue of Liberty and the Resolute Desk—items symbolically given to the American people, not personally to a sitting president. His justification ignored the unprecedented nature of such a gift and failed to reassure the public that proper safeguards are in place to prevent undue foreign influence.
Bessent’s interview revealed an administration that remains more focused on deflection and rhetorical positioning than policy coherence or ethical governance. Tapper’s questions were pointed and grounded in real-world concerns—especially those of small business owners and working Americans—but Bessent responded with rehearsed talking points and misleading comparisons. This appearance offered more insight into the administration’s public relations strategy than its actual economic stewardship, revealing a troubling pattern of spin, opacity, and disregard for both institutional norms and public accountability.
The Fox News interview featuring FBI Director Kash Patel and Deputy Director Dan Bongino, conducted by Maria Bartiromo, was less a briefing on law enforcement policy than a politically charged spectacle laden with partisan rhetoric, personal grievance, and sensational claims. From the outset, the conversation fixated on a controversial and arguably misinterpreted social media post by former FBI Director James Comey, which the hosts and guests suggested could be construed as a call for assassination. This interpretation, presented without serious scrutiny, framed the entire interview in conspiratorial overtones. Rather than clarifying the FBI’s work or policies under the Trump administration, the interview centered on relitigating past grievances related to Russiagate, Crossfire Hurricane, and the January 6 investigation. Patel and Bongino cast themselves as crusaders cleaning up a deeply corrupted agency, emphasizing personal loyalty to Trump and framing their leadership as a moral and patriotic mission.
The tone throughout was combative and frequently dehumanizing. Both officials used inflammatory language to describe criminal suspects—terms like “mutts,” “animals,” and “bad guys” were freely employed—while advocating for aggressive, expedited removals of undocumented immigrants with little regard for due process. They claimed credit for breaking up trafficking rings and saving children, but framed these efforts more as acts of vengeance than justice. Their response to criticism, especially on their promotion of controversial figures like Steve Jensen, was dismissive, even as they claimed to be ushering in a new era of transparency and accountability. Yet on core issues such as January 6 and the Epstein case, they offered only vague promises that information would be forthcoming, without substantive evidence or timelines. Their insistence that troves of documents are on their way to Congress sounded more like strategic deflection than genuine transparency.
Despite repeated claims that the FBI is being depoliticized, the interview served largely as a political performance. Patel and Bongino continually emphasized their personal relationships with Trump, their disdain for “weak” prior leaders, and their morning meetings with other Trump loyalists. They did little to reassure the public that the FBI would operate independently from political influence. The contradiction between their self-proclaimed budget stewardship and their broad, resource-intensive national deployment plans further undermined the credibility of their fiscal messaging. Meanwhile, Maria Bartiromo provided no meaningful journalistic challenge to any of the assertions made, often affirming their statements with her own anecdotes or exaggerated language, and closing with uncritical praise.
Ultimately, the interview reinforced the perception that the FBI’s current leadership is less interested in impartial law enforcement than in rehabilitating the Trump administration’s narrative and weaponizing the Bureau as a tool of political retribution. While cloaked in patriotic rhetoric and tough-on-crime posturing, the substance of the discussion was thin, often speculative, and frequently adversarial.