What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
Weekend Recap: February 15-16, 2025
President Trump’s social media post on February 15 has drawn sharp criticism, with opponents accusing him of embracing a dictator-like mindset and declaring himself above the law. On X (formerly Twitter) and Truth Social, Trump posted the statement: "He who saves his Country does not violate any Law." He did not provide further context, and the White House declined to comment. However, the official White House X account later reposted Trump's statement alongside his mugshot from his ongoing Fulton County, Georgia, election interference case, seemingly as a pointed rebuttal.
The origins of Trump's quote are disputed, though it is often attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte. A similar phrase—“He who saves a nation violates no law”—was spoken by actor Rod Steiger in the 1970 film Waterloo, in which he played Napoleon. On Truth Social, Trump also shared an image of Napoleon on horseback with the quote overlaid, reinforcing the historical parallel.
The controversy surrounding Trump’s post is amplified by ongoing legal scrutiny of his actions since returning to office. His administration faces multiple lawsuits and accusations of violating the U.S. Constitution, particularly regarding his executive order freezing foreign aid and the controversial appointment of Elon Musk as head of the newly created Department of Government Efficiency. Additionally, Trump remains the first U.S. president (current or former) to be convicted of a crime. In his criminal hush money case, a judge ruled last month that due to “protections afforded to the office of the president,” Trump would receive an unconditional discharge—meaning he would not face punishment, but his felony status remains intact.
Democrats swiftly condemned Trump’s statement, arguing that it reveals a dangerous authoritarian mindset. Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) responded on X, writing, “Spoken like a true dictator.” Similarly, Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY) warned, “Donald Trump seems to believe he can do whatever he wishes in the name of ‘saving the country.’ In our constitutional republic, the means matter more than the ends. The U.S. Constitution trumps the policy preferences of President Trump.” Critics argue that this latest statement aligns with Trump’s past rhetoric on presidential power, including his claims of “total authority” and his refusal to accept the results of the 2020 election.
Despite the backlash, Trump’s allies have downplayed the significance of his post. In an ABC News’ This Week interview, Reince Priebus, Trump’s first Chief of Staff and former RNC Chair, dismissed the controversy as “catnip for the media.” He argued that Trump enjoys stirring controversy, describing the post as a deliberate attempt to provoke a reaction. “It’s entertainment for Trump. It’s a distraction,” Priebus said, likening the post to Trump “throwing a grenade” into public discourse to watch the fallout.
The post has further inflamed concerns about Trump’s views on presidential power and legal accountability. Critics warn that it sets a dangerous precedent, while his allies dismiss it as political theater. Regardless of intent, the controversy highlights the growing divide over Trump’s leadership, legal challenges, and interpretation of executive authority.
The Trump administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in its attempt to fire Hampton Dellinger, the head of the Office of Special Counsel (OSC). This independent agency protects government whistleblowers. The Justice Department is seeking to overturn a lower court’s temporary order that reinstated Dellinger after Trump dismissed him on February 7.
Dellinger, appointed by President Biden to a five-year term ending in 2029, sued, arguing that Trump lacked the legal authority to remove him without cause, as federal law allows removal only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance. U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson agreed, issuing a temporary restraining order and stating that Trump's actions contradicted the Special Counsel’s independence protections.
The case could set a precedent for Trump’s broader efforts to reshape the federal government by removing heads of independent agencies. The Supreme Court, with a 6-3 conservative majority, including three Trump appointees, has not yet docketed the case. The administration argues that the judiciary should not dictate the president’s authority over executive appointments.
Dellinger’s lawsuit highlights concerns over civil service protections, noting a surge in federal employee terminations without cause. The OSC investigates whistleblower complaints and enforces the Hatch Act, which limits political activity by federal employees. Trump's move to fire Dellinger follows his previous dismissal of 17 inspectors general, raising concerns over political interference in government oversight.
The Trump administration abruptly dismissed 20 immigration judges over the weekend, including 13 who had not yet been sworn in and five assistant chief judges. Two additional judges were fired the previous week. The decision came without explanation and has drawn criticism, particularly given the immigration court system's backlog of over 3.7 million pending cases.
Matthew Biggs, union president representing immigration judges, called the move puzzling. It contradicts Trump's firm stance on immigration enforcement. Despite bipartisan support for expanding court staffing, the administration’s push for expedited case resolution adds pressure on an already overwhelmed system.
Recent leadership changes at the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) have also sparked concern. Sirce Owen, the new director, has implemented policies that differ from those of the Biden administration. One of the dismissed judges, Kerry Doyle, a Biden appointee, revealed on LinkedIn that she and others were notified of their terminations via email, criticizing the decision as counterproductive given the backlog and the Justice Department’s request for additional funding to hire more staff.
The Trump administration has begun cutting the federal workforce at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), firing recently hired employees responsible for reviewing food ingredients, medical devices, and tobacco products. Probationary employees received termination notices on Saturday, though the exact number of positions eliminated remains unclear. The cuts appear to focus on food safety, medical devices, and tobacco oversight, but it is uncertain if drug review employees were affected.
These layoffs are part of a broader effort by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to reduce staff, with an expected 5,200 cuts across its agencies, including nearly 1,300 at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). However, reports indicate only 700 CDC employees had received notices by Sunday, and those in the Epidemic Intelligence Service, which tracks diseases, were unaffected.
The FDA, with nearly 20,000 employees, has been a target of new HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr., who has criticized the agency for blocking unproven treatments and called for banning certain food chemicals. Ironically, the layoffs include staffers who review food additives. Since nearly half of the FDA’s budget comes from industry fees, these cuts will not reduce government spending but may weaken the agency’s ability to conduct product reviews efficiently.
Experts warn that eliminating younger, newly trained employees could damage the FDA’s workforce, which is already struggling with recruitment and retention. The FDA's inspection force, which has faced shortages and backlogs, may also be affected. Critics argue the move will demoralize federal employees and hinder the agency’s ability to regulate public health effectively.
The Trump administration initially fired hundreds of employees from the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and other parts of the Department of Energy (DOE) as part of cost-cutting efforts led by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). However, most of these firings were abruptly reversed following backlash and concerns over national security.
The layoffs, which affected up to 350 NNSA employees, included critical personnel working on nuclear warhead maintenance at the Pantex Plant in Texas. Some employees discovered they had been fired when they lost email access and were locked out of their offices. Around 2,000 DOE employees were affected, many of whom were involved in nuclear safety and waste management.
After widespread criticism from officials and nuclear security experts, NNSA Acting Director Teresa Robbins reinstated all but 28 of the fired staff. The DOE, however, downplayed the extent of the layoffs, claiming fewer than 50 people were affected and that they primarily held administrative roles.
Experts warn that these disruptions could harm national security, weaken institutional knowledge in the nuclear sector, and send a message of instability to U.S. adversaries. Lawmakers and security experts have called the move reckless, as the agency is in the midst of a $750 billion nuclear modernization effort. Some fired employees are hesitant to return, fearing further instability.
In an interview with Dana Bash on CNN’s State Of The Union, Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, defended his collaboration with New York Mayor Eric Adams on immigration enforcement, particularly regarding ICE access to Rikers Island. Bash questioned whether the DOJ dropping a corruption case against Adams influenced his decision, but Homan dismissed the idea as "ridiculous," stating that discussions about Rikers Island had been ongoing for months.
Homan emphasized that his focus is on removing public safety threats and locating missing children, not making local law enforcement immigration officers. He denied that ICE would conduct broad raids in schools, churches, or other sensitive locations, clarifying that enforcement actions would target specific criminals.
Bash also pressed Homan about Trump’s deportation goals, noting that current arrest rates are well below the administration’s stated targets. Homan blamed sanctuary city policies for making enforcement more difficult, requiring ICE to conduct field arrests instead of detaining individuals already in jail.
When asked about Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s (AOC) “Know Your Rights” webinar for undocumented immigrants, Homan questioned whether such efforts impede law enforcement and stated that he was consulting with the DOJ on legal boundaries. He accused AOC of teaching undocumented individuals how to evade ICE, though he acknowledged they have constitutional rights.
In his Face the Nation interview on Sunday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio provided a diplomatic but often evasive defense of the Trump administration’s foreign policy, sidestepping critical details on key global issues. While he reaffirmed the administration’s commitment to securing the release of Israeli hostages, he avoided directly addressing the implications of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s ominous warning of escalation. Rubio’s repeated insistence that the U.S. wants all hostages released “as soon as possible” was a predictable talking point but failed to clarify whether the administration is actively pressing Israel to avoid military escalation or if the U.S. has any leverage in shaping the outcome.
On Iran, Rubio flatly dismissed the idea of diplomacy, claiming Tehran has not reached out and showing little interest in changing that. His comments suggest a rigid approach that may ignore diplomatic openings in favor of hardline rhetoric. Furthermore, his refusal to comment on whether the U.S. would support an Israeli preemptive strike leaves open the possibility of unchecked escalation in the region. While Rubio spoke about Iran’s nuclear ambitions and terrorism sponsorship, he provided no indication of a clear U.S. strategy beyond continuing to isolate the regime.
Perhaps the most glaring diplomatic ambiguity came in Rubio’s discussion of the Ukraine-Russia war. He acknowledged that President Trump had spoken with Vladimir Putin and that Putin expressed interest in peace, yet Rubio himself admitted that no concrete negotiation process exists. This raises serious concerns about whether the Trump administration is engaging in genuine diplomacy or simply allowing Russia to use these discussions as a stalling tactic while continuing its aggression in Ukraine. Rubio’s reluctance to confirm any details about further talks, particularly regarding potential sanctions relief, signals a lack of transparency in how the administration plans to navigate relations with Moscow. His conversation with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was described as a mere “opening of communication.” Yet, he admitted the topic of diplomatic restrictions was raised—suggesting that some level of back-channel negotiation may already be in motion.
The most controversial moment of the interview came when Rubio defended Vice President J.D. Vance’s remarks at the Munich Security Conference, in which Vance prioritized concerns over “censorship” above geopolitical threats like Russia or China. Rubio dismissed criticism that Vance’s meeting with Germany’s far-right AfD party could damage U.S.-European relations, reframing the backlash as intolerance for free speech. This response ignored the broader diplomatic consequences of engaging with a party that is under official investigation for extremist ties, and it demonstrated an unwillingness to acknowledge the concerns of U.S. allies. Rubio’s historical revisionism—insisting that free speech played no role in the rise of Nazi Germany—was a weak attempt to deflect from the reality that words and political rhetoric have power, particularly in a European context where the far-right is resurgent.
National Security Advisor Mike Waltz’s interview with Shannon Bream on Fox News Sunday presented a range of policy positions but suffered from a lack of substantive detail, deflections on key questions, and contradictions in framing U.S. foreign engagement. His repeated assertion that Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky believed "only President Trump could get them to the table" was a bold claim lacking concrete evidence. By attributing potential diplomatic success solely to Trump’s personal influence, Waltz oversimplified the geopolitical complexities of the war in Ukraine and failed to outline any specific negotiation strategies or diplomatic tools the administration intended to employ.
Another inconsistency arose in his discussion of European involvement. While he insisted that European allies were not being sidelined in negotiations, he also emphasized that NATO members had to “own this conflict” and criticized their lack of financial commitment. This contradictory stance weakened his argument—either European nations were being adequately engaged or failing to meet their responsibilities. Furthermore, when pressed on why Ukraine was not guaranteed a seat at the negotiating table, Waltz pivoted to discussions of economic partnerships rather than directly addressing the concern. His reluctance to provide a clear answer raised questions about whether Ukraine’s sovereignty was truly being prioritized in peace talks.
Waltz’s remarks on financial aid also introduced further ambiguity. He argued that U.S. assistance to Ukraine should be accompanied by repayment expectations, framing it as a necessary shift in strategy. However, he provided no details on how such a repayment model would be structured or whether it was feasible given Ukraine’s ongoing economic and military struggles. His claim that European aid was primarily in the form of loans was misleading, as many European nations had provided direct military and humanitarian support without repayment requirements.
On the issue of potential U.S. involvement in an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, Waltz avoided directly addressing a Washington Post report about possible military support. Instead, he reiterated that Trump was “deadly serious” about preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons but refused to confirm or deny any operational details. This evasiveness left a significant gap in understanding the administration’s approach to one of the most volatile security issues in the Middle East.
President Trump has declared an emergency in Kentucky due to severe storms, straight-line winds, flooding, and landslides that began on February 14, 2025. The declaration enables the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA to coordinate disaster relief efforts to aid affected residents, protect public health and safety, and mitigate further damage.
FEMA is authorized to provide necessary equipment and resources, and emergency protective measures are covered by 75% federal funding. Jeremy Slinker has been appointed to lead federal recovery operations across all 120 counties in the state.