What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
June 30, 2025 Recap
Karoline Leavitt’s latest White House press briefing is emblematic of the Trump administration’s continued fusion of partisan bravado, campaign-style rhetoric, and governance messaging, resulting in a chaotic, often inflammatory performance that prioritizes spectacle over clarity. Her tone throughout is consistently hyperbolic and combative, mirroring President Trump’s own media posture. She refers to a new detention center in Florida as “Alligator Alcatraz,” flaunting its isolation and dangerous surroundings as a deterrent rather than addressing humanitarian or legal concerns, reflecting the administration’s preference for punitive symbolism over substantive immigration reform.
Leavitt’s presentation of economic data is riddled with contradictions and questionable framing. She declares the economy to be booming with “historically low inflation” while simultaneously lambasting high interest rates as a betrayal by Fed Chair Jerome Powell, whom she accuses of “costing the USA a fortune.” She quotes a sharply worded note from President Trump to Powell, treating a petulant presidential outburst as a legitimate policy communication. This politicization of monetary policy—notably the suggestion that Powell should be fired for failing to accommodate Trump’s demands—reflects a dangerous disregard for institutional independence.
The press secretary’s statements on the so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill” are another exercise in bombast and oversimplification. She claims the bill offers the “largest middle and working-class tax cuts in history” and solves problems ranging from illegal immigration to Medicaid abuse to national defense—all while brushing off a Congressional Budget Office estimate that it would increase the number of uninsured Americans by 11 million and add $3.3 trillion to the deficit. This kind of willful defiance of nonpartisan budget analysis is not new for the Trump administration, but the dismissiveness is particularly stark here. Her glib assurance that “rural hospitals comprise only 7% of Medicaid spending” is cold comfort to the vulnerable populations those facilities serve.
Leavitt’s attempts to portray Democrats as extremists border on caricature. Her extended attack on New York mayoral candidate Zoran Mamdani—calling him a “communist” who wants to abolish Israel and praising a congressman’s effort to explore denaturalization based on rap lyrics—is not only inflammatory but also undermines the seriousness of national security and civil rights discourse. It reflects the administration’s preference for demonizing political opponents rather than engaging in policy differences.
The international segment of the briefing is equally muddled. She touts President Trump’s foreign policy as “peace through strength,” crediting him with brokering a ceasefire between Israel and Iran, obliterating nuclear sites, and eliminating all American hostages—claims that range from unverifiable to implausible. Her explanation for easing sanctions on Syria contradicts prior U.S. policy and includes no legal justification for lifting penalties on a regime widely accused of war crimes.
Finally, the Q&A devolves into a mix of defensiveness and evasion. Leavitt refuses to give direct answers on controversial trade provisions, the status of TikTok negotiations, the sustainability of tax breaks, and the administration's support for wind and solar projects (even as it reportedly plans to tax them). She brushes off legitimate journalistic questions and blames media outlets like CNN for “promoting violence” by allegedly mentioning an ICE-alert app, without verifying its content or context.
Overall, the briefing is a performance of partisan posturing, conspiratorial insinuation, and aggressive messaging designed more to rally a political base than to inform the public or answer to democratic accountability. It sacrifices factual coherence and responsible governance in favor of Trumpian loyalty tests, culture-war theatrics, and unrelenting political attack.
The Trump administration has filed a lawsuit against the city of Los Angeles, alleging that its immigration policies unlawfully discriminate against federal law enforcement and obstruct federal immigration enforcement. The suit appears less concerned with genuine legal violations and more with advancing a political agenda rooted in aggressive immigration enforcement and punitive federalism. The administration’s central claim — that Los Angeles discriminates against federal law enforcement — leans heavily on ideological framing rather than substantive constitutional arguments. By asserting that sanctuary policies directly caused "violence, chaos, and attacks on law enforcement," Attorney General Pam Bondi employs inflammatory rhetoric without offering evidence, blurring the line between public safety policy and political scapegoating.
The inclusion of campaign language in the filing, referencing Trump’s 2016 victory as a mandate to deport "millions of illegal immigrants,” further politicizes the legal action. It suggests the suit is not just about law enforcement cooperation but about asserting federal dominance over dissenting local jurisdictions. The targeting of individual officials, such as Mayor Karen Bass and Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson, appears punitive and personalized, especially in the context of ongoing protests and widespread criticism of the administration’s immigration tactics.
Moreover, the Trump administration’s simultaneous legal and public relations campaign — including lawsuits against other sanctuary cities like New York — reveals a broader strategy of using the courts to intimidate local governments that resist federal immigration priorities. In this light, the Los Angeles lawsuit appears to be designed to score political points and rally Trump’s base rather than resolve concrete legal disputes. It raises troubling questions about the erosion of local autonomy and the weaponization of federal power to punish ideological opposition.
The Justice Department has appealed a federal judge’s decision blocking President Trump’s executive order targeting the law firm Perkins Coie, which had ties to his political opponents. Judge Beryl Howell had struck down the order in May, calling it reminiscent of McCarthy-era tactics and suggesting it was politically motivated retaliation. The order revoked security clearances, barred access to federal buildings, and required contract reviews for Perkins Coie and five other law firms, including those tied to Hillary Clinton and the Steele dossier.
Three other federal judges have also struck down similar Trump orders against Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey, all finding them unconstitutional. Meanwhile, some firms, such as Paul, Weiss, avoided legal battles by making concessions, including pledging pro bono work for Trump administration priorities and dropping DEI policies. Other major firms made quiet deals despite not being officially targeted.
The case may set a precedent as the first appellate review of Trump’s punitive executive actions against Big Law, testing the limits of presidential authority over security clearances and contractor relationships.
Very well written. I’m sick of Trump and all he stands for. Such a greedy, foolish old man.