What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
March 11, 2025 Recap
Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt delivered a highly partisan briefing that underscored the Trump administration’s economic and political messaging but often at the expense of nuance and factual balance. Her portrayal of the administration’s economic strategy was overly simplistic, especially when discussing tariffs. Leavitt repeatedly claimed that tariffs are “tax cuts for Americans,” a misleading assertion that ignores the basic economic reality that tariffs are often passed on to U.S. consumers and businesses through higher prices. Her dismissal of significant stock market volatility as a mere “snapshot” of a transition period also downplayed the genuine concerns of everyday Americans who rely on market stability for their savings and retirement plans.
Leavitt’s framing of immigration and campus protests was similarly blunt and reductive. She conflated pro-Palestinian demonstrations with support for Hamas terrorism, avoiding any acknowledgment that these protests—however controversial—may reflect legitimate political dissent, especially among college students concerned about U.S. policy in Gaza. Her rhetoric framed these events as threats to national security, aligning them with terrorism and suggesting that visa holders involved in such protests should face deportation. This approach raises serious concerns about freedom of expression and due process, particularly on university campuses.
The press secretary’s treatment of foreign relations, especially with Canada, was unusually provocative. Leavitt characterized Canada as both a long-time economic adversary and a potential “51st state,” mocking Canada’s cost of living and high tax rates. These remarks, combined with her defense of new tariffs and threats of “grave consequences” if Canada restricts electricity exports to the U.S., undermined traditional diplomatic norms. Her tone was combative rather than cooperative, and her offhand comments about statehood veered into absurdity, potentially straining ties with a key ally.
When addressing internal Republican dynamics, Leavitt echoed Trump’s political pressure on Congressman Thomas Massie, defending efforts to enforce party unity behind a continuing resolution. However, she offered little policy justification for this move, instead framing it purely as a loyalty issue. In her exchanges with reporters, Leavitt remained assertive but, at times, crossed into confrontational territory. She dismissed a valid economic question from the Associated Press with sarcasm and accused the reporter of insulting her intelligence—an unnecessary escalation that suggested an unwillingness to engage critically with opposing views.
Leavitt’s briefing lacked the nuance, balance, and policy depth expected from a White House press briefing. Her communication style prioritized rhetorical dominance and political theater over factual clarity, undermining the administration’s credibility on complex economic, diplomatic, and social issues.
President Trump issued a memorandum arguing that activist organizations have increasingly abused the judicial system by seeking broad injunctions against federal government policies, characterizing this behavior as politically motivated and anti-democratic. It criticizes these groups for allegedly exploiting judicial processes to raise funds, garner attention, and hinder government operations, asserting that their actions waste taxpayer dollars and unnecessarily consume the resources of the Department of Justice. To counteract this, the memorandum emphasizes strict enforcement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), directing federal agencies to require plaintiffs seeking injunctions to post security sufficient to cover potential government losses should their injunction be later found wrongful.
The memorandum oversimplifies complex legal dynamics by framing judicial actions primarily as obstructionist or illegitimate, overlooking genuine checks and balances that lawsuits against the government can provide. Additionally, pushing stringent financial obligations onto plaintiffs risks deterring legitimate challenges against potentially unlawful government policies, possibly undermining an important avenue for accountability and transparency.
President Trump’s announcement that he plans to buy a Tesla to show public support for Elon Musk is more symbolic performance than meaningful policy. While it may briefly bolster headlines or appeal to certain voter blocs, the gesture does little to address the real financial and reputational challenges Tesla is currently facing—many of which stem from Musk’s own decisions.
Trump’s post on Truth Social labeling Tesla boycotts as “illegal and disgusting” is not just factually incorrect—it’s constitutionally careless. Whether one agrees with them or not, boycotts are protected speech under the First Amendment. Trump’s rhetoric blurs the line between opinion and law, suggesting a willingness to criminalize dissent if it targets his allies. That should raise alarms about how political power might be wielded under a second Trump administration.
Meanwhile, Musk’s entanglement with politics—specifically, his alignment with Trump and his rumored role as head of the fictional-sounding Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)—has become a liability for Tesla. Musk has openly admitted that political backlash is hurting his bottom line, with European markets pulling back and incidents of protest and vandalism on the rise. Once an asset, his personal branding is now a weight, dragging down the companies he leads.
Despite a modest 3.8% stock boost after Trump’s endorsement and a bullish Morgan Stanley report, the fundamentals remain shaky. Investors and consumers alike are increasingly wary of the overlap between Musk’s political ambitions and business interests. Aligning Tesla—a global company—with a polarizing political figure might energize Trump’s base, but it risks alienating international markets and moderate consumers.
Ultimately, Trump’s Tesla stunt is another example of political theater masquerading as economic policy. It may grab attention, but it’s unlikely to reverse the tide of reputational and financial challenges Tesla now faces—many of them self-inflicted.
The Trump administration is moving forward with its goal to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education. On Tuesday, the department announced plans to cut nearly 50% of its workforce, affecting all divisions. Over 1,300 positions will be eliminated, with an additional 600 employees having already resigned or retired. Impacted staff will be placed on administrative leave starting March 21.
Despite the cuts, the department will continue legally mandated programs such as student loans, Pell Grants, and special education funding. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon called the move a step toward greater efficiency and returning education control to the states.
The employees’ union, AFGE Local 252, condemned the cuts and encouraged public opposition. However, all six of the union's officers were laid off soon after the statement. Employees were instructed to vacate their offices and prepare to work from home amid fears of retaliation.
The downsizing aligns with broader federal guidance to reduce government staff through attrition and eliminating unnecessary roles. Reorganization plans are due this week at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).
Perkins Coie, a prominent law firm known for representing Democratic clients, filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, challenging an executive order issued by President Trump. The order, seen as punitive, targeted the firm by revoking security credentials, banning access to government buildings, and terminating contracts—severely restricting its ability to operate in federal matters.
The lawsuit claims the order is unconstitutional, violates federal law, and is intended to intimidate lawyers who oppose the administration politically. Trump justified the order by citing the firm's past work with Hillary Clinton and legal efforts challenging the 2020 election results.
Perkins Coie argues that the order has already caused them to lose clients and business as concerns grow about the firm’s ability to represent clients under government pressure effectively. The day after the suit was filed, a federal judge scheduled a hearing for a temporary restraining order.
The Trump administration lifted its suspension of military aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine after a week-long hold to pressure Ukrainian President Zelenskyy into peace talks with Russia. Following U.S.-Ukraine talks in Saudi Arabia, Kyiv signaled openness to a 30-day ceasefire if Russia agrees.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the U.S. would present the ceasefire offer to Russia, stressing the ball is now in Moscow’s court. National security adviser Mike Waltz said Ukraine shares Trump’s vision for peace and that discussions covered potential long-term security guarantees.
Talks in Saudi Arabia, which included American, Ukrainian, and Saudi officials, came just hours after Ukraine launched its largest drone attack yet, with over 300 drones targeting Russia. Russia responded with its own barrage, including 126 drones and a ballistic missile targeting Ukraine.
Despite the diplomatic efforts, both sides remain cautious. Ukraine is wary that a ceasefire might give Russia time to regroup. At the same time, the Kremlin has yet to offer concessions, insisting Ukraine must abandon its NATO ambitions and recognize Russian-occupied regions.
The meeting also served to ease tensions between the Trump administration and Kyiv after a recent confrontation in Washington.
Meanwhile, Ukrainian civilians and soldiers expressed a mix of hope and skepticism about peace, with many wary of making compromises or trusting Russia’s intentions.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has temporarily halted funding to the University of Maine System (UMS), citing an evaluation of possible Title VI or Title IX violations. The pause follows a confrontation between President Trump and Maine Gov. Janet Mills over transgender rights, particularly policies regarding transgender athletes. Trump warned that states not complying with his executive orders could lose federal funding.
UMS, which received nearly $30 million from the USDA in fiscal 2024, said the inquiries focused on its transgender athlete policies and that it has complied with state, federal, and NCAA rules. Officials expressed concern about the impact on research, farmers, and students, with Rep. Chellie Pingree criticizing the move as political retaliation.
Columbia University was also included in the USDA’s funding pause. The Trump administration has accused Columbia of failing to address antisemitism, resulting in the cancellation of $400 million in grants. Additionally, a Columbia student leader involved in pro-Palestinian protests, Mahmoud Khalil, was detained by federal immigration authorities—marking the first known attempt by the administration to deport a student activist.
A federal judge in Boston has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from cutting around $600 million in teacher training funds. The decision came after eight states sued, claiming the cuts—targeting programs like the Teacher Quality Partnership and Supporting Effective Educator Development—were politically motivated and aimed at eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.
Judge Myong Joun ruled the Education Department violated administrative law by ending the programs without proper notice or justification, causing immediate harm, including canceled training programs and staff layoffs. The states involved include California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, New York, and Wisconsin.
Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell called the ruling a win for students and educators. Meanwhile, the Trump administration, which has vowed to dismantle the Education Department, has appealed the decision.