What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
March 6, 2025 Recap
President Trump’s executive order targeting Perkins Coie LLP is a striking example of executive overreach, using federal authority to penalize a private law firm based on its political associations. The order frames Perkins Coie as a national security risk and a threat to democracy, citing its role in the 2016 election and its involvement in legal challenges to voter ID laws. However, these claims rely more on political rhetoric than concrete legal violations, raising concerns about selective enforcement. Many law firms engage in political advocacy and election-related litigation. Yet, this order uniquely targets Perkins Coie, suggesting an intent to punish a firm associated with Democratic causes rather than uphold any consistent legal standard.
The executive order’s legal foundation is highly questionable, particularly in its sweeping directives to revoke security clearances, terminate federal contracts, and restrict government engagement with Perkins Coie employees. Revoking security clearances is an individualized process based on demonstrated security risks, not broad accusations tied to a firm’s political activities. Similarly, canceling federal contracts based on ideological considerations rather than legal violations opens the administration to legal challenges under contract law and constitutional protections against arbitrary government action. The absence of specific statutory violations in the order makes it vulnerable to court challenges, as the government cannot simply blacklist an entity without due process.
Beyond its legal weaknesses, the order’s provisions on employment restrictions set a dangerous precedent. Directing federal agencies to avoid hiring former Perkins Coie employees unless explicitly waived by top officials is an alarming expansion of government influence over private-sector careers. Such policies effectively blacklist legal professionals based on their past affiliations, undermining the principle of independent legal representation and discouraging attorneys from engaging in politically sensitive cases. Similarly, the directive for federal agencies to investigate large law firms for race-based hiring practices appears to be more about targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs than ensuring civil rights compliance. While enforcing anti-discrimination laws is legitimate, framing DEI policies as inherently unlawful reflects a broader ideological agenda rather than neutral law enforcement.
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the order is its blatant use of federal power for political retribution. The language of the order is not neutral or legalistic but instead infused with partisan rhetoric, presenting disputed allegations as settled fact. By claiming that Perkins Coie “manufactured a false dossier” and “worked to overturn democratically enacted election laws judicially,” the order misrepresents legal advocacy as misconduct. This approach sets a dangerous precedent where future administrations could use similar justifications to target law firms or businesses based on their political leanings rather than clear legal wrongdoing.
Rather than strengthening democratic institutions, this order undermines them by politicizing legal enforcement and federal contracting. It erodes trust in the executive branch by using government resources to punish a specific firm for its past political work. If challenged in court, many of its provisions—especially those related to security clearances, contract restrictions, and employment limitations—will likely face significant legal obstacles. Ultimately, this executive order raises serious concerns about the weaponization of presidential power for partisan ends and the broader implications for the rule of law in the United States.
President Trump issued a similar executive order for the southern border, ostensibly addressing illicit drug flow but instead prioritizing economic adjustments with little connection to drug interdiction. While the order modifies tariffs from Executive Order 14194, it focuses on protecting U.S. automotive supply chains and selectively reducing potash tariffs, raising doubts about its security rationale. The lack of enforcement measures or direct anti-smuggling initiatives suggests a misalignment between stated intentions and actual policy actions.
By easing tariffs initially imposed under his own administration, Trump's move appears more reactive than strategic, undermining previous trade policies. The selective nature of the tariff reductions further raises concerns about economic favoritism rather than a coherent national security strategy. The order’s legal disclaimers also indicate no enforceable commitment to addressing drug smuggling.
Ultimately, this executive order fails to substantiate its security claims, functioning more as a trade policy adjustment than a genuine border security measure. If the administration truly aims to curb drug trafficking, a focus on enforcement, intelligence-sharing, and cartel disruption would be far more effective than tariff revisions.
First, the order acknowledges the importance of the American automotive industry and its dependence on cross-border trade. However, the original decision to impose tariffs on Canadian imports—presumably as a punitive measure related to drug enforcement—suggests a misalignment between trade policy and law enforcement objectives. This amendment implicitly concedes that the initial tariffs were economically disruptive, requiring a walk-back to protect U.S. jobs and supply chains. This reversal calls into question the rationale behind the original policy and suggests a reactive rather than strategic approach to trade enforcement.
Second, while the adjustment reduces the tariff on potash—a crucial agricultural input—from 25% to 10%, it does not justify why potash was targeted in the first place. Potash is primarily used in fertilizers, and Canada is one of the world's largest suppliers. The initial tariff would have disproportionately affected American farmers rather than addressing drug trafficking concerns. The decision to reduce (but not eliminate) this tariff appears more like damage control than a well-considered economic or security measure.
Moreover, the order does not provide any substantive evidence or justification connecting the original tariff policy to reducing illicit drug flow. The fact that it was necessary to revise these tariffs so quickly—barely a month after the initial executive order—suggests that the administration's initial actions were poorly planned or politically motivated rather than grounded in sound policy.
Finally, the general provisions section, which emphasizes that the order does not create any enforceable rights or benefits, signals a legal safeguard against challenges but does little to address the underlying issues. The vague language further underscores the executive order’s lack of substantive direction beyond tariff adjustments.
In sum, this amendment serves as a tacit admission that the administration’s initial policy was misguided. It highlights the pitfalls of using trade restrictions as a blunt instrument for addressing non-trade issues like drug enforcement. While the modifications help mitigate economic harm, they do not resolve the fundamental flaw: an inconsistent and poorly justified approach to international trade and border security.
The Trump administration is reportedly planning to revoke temporary legal status for approximately 240,000 Ukrainians who fled the war with Russia, along with more than 1.8 million other migrants who were granted humanitarian parole under the Biden administration. This move could lead to fast-track deportation for affected individuals.
The decision is part of a broader effort to end Biden-era parole programs, including protections for 530,000 migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, as well as over 70,000 Afghans who fled the Taliban. While the White House has stated that no decision has been finalized, internal sources confirm the administration's intent to proceed.
Some affected migrants, like a Ukrainian family in Iowa and an Afghan intelligence officer who worked alongside U.S. forces, have already found themselves in legal limbo or detained. The rollback of these programs reflects Trump's campaign promise to curb migration pathways he argues exceed legal boundaries.
According to officials, President Trump is considering a significant shift in U.S. participation in NATO. He has discussed with aides the idea of adjusting America's commitment based on how much NATO members spend on defense. Under this potential policy change, the U.S. might not defend a NATO country if it fails to meet a set defense spending threshold, challenging the alliance's core principle of mutual defense under Article 5.
Trump is also considering prioritizing military exercises and repositioning U.S. troops in Europe to favor countries that meet the spending target. His administration has already suggested reducing the U.S. military presence in Europe.
A National Security Council official stated that Trump remains committed to NATO and Article 5 despite these discussions. Meanwhile, Sen. Chris Coons reported that Trump’s nominee for U.S. ambassador to NATO reassured lawmakers about America’s commitment to the alliance.
Trump has long criticized NATO members for not meeting the agreed-upon goal of spending 2% of their GDP on defense, arguing that the U.S. bears an unfair burden. He has even proposed increasing the target to 5%, though the U.S. does not currently meet that level.
President Trump convened an in-person Cabinet meeting to clarify that Elon Musk, despite his role leading the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), does not have unilateral decision-making authority over staffing and policy. Trump emphasized that Cabinet secretaries, not Musk, are ultimately in charge of their departments, though Musk may provide recommendations.
This meeting followed widespread firings and threats to government employees under DOGE, sparking legal challenges and bipartisan criticism. Trump’s new directive signals a move to limit Musk’s power to an advisory role, though it remains unclear whether terminated workers will be reinstated.
Musk, who attended the meeting, acknowledged DOGE’s missteps. Trump reaffirmed that while efficiency reforms will continue, he prefers a selective approach (“scalpel” rather than “hatchet”) to personnel changes. His administration, however, has already dismissed tens of thousands of federal employees, with courts questioning the legality of these actions.
The timing of Trump’s directive follows concerns from lawmakers, including Senate Majority Leader John Thune, about who has ultimate hiring and firing authority. Legal scrutiny around DOGE’s role is intensifying, with courts investigating whether Musk has been wielding unconstitutional power without Senate confirmation. Ongoing lawsuits and judicial reviews could further clarify Musk’s official influence in the administration.
President Trump’s erratic and inconsistent approach to trade policy was again on display with his abrupt reversal of 25% tariffs for Mexico and Canada. Initially imposed to pressure both countries into taking stronger action on migration and fentanyl trafficking, the tariffs were lifted just two days later after conversations with U.S. automakers and leaders from the affected nations. This knee-jerk decision-making created market instability and reinforced the perception that Trump’s trade policies are dictated more by short-term political maneuvering than by any coherent long-term strategy.
The reversal came after Trump spoke with Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, whom he praised for her efforts on migration and fentanyl issues, granting Mexico a break on tariffs under the USMCA. However, his apparent willingness to negotiate based on personal rapport rather than concrete policy outcomes raises concerns about the lack of a clear, structured approach to trade diplomacy. Meanwhile, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called Trump’s fentanyl accusations false and warned that Canada would retaliate with its own tariffs, signaling that the U.S. may have triggered a trade conflict that could persist beyond Trump’s short-term relief measures.
Further complicating matters, Trump’s timeline for implementing tariffs has been inconsistent and chaotic. Initially set for February 1, the tariffs were postponed to March 4, then suddenly imposed before being lifted again—only to be replaced with a vague promise of "reciprocal tariffs" beginning April 2. This unpredictable approach undermines the credibility of U.S. trade policy and creates uncertainty for businesses and trade partners alike. The lack of clarity on which countries and products will be targeted next adds to the confusion and makes long-term planning nearly impossible for industries that rely on stable trade agreements.
Moreover, while Mexico and Canada have stepped up border enforcement, it’s unclear whether their efforts align with Trump’s fluctuating demands. Mexico presented U.S. data showing a significant drop in fentanyl seizures, yet Trump continued to frame the issue as unresolved. His shifting stance raises the question of whether these tariffs were ever truly about drug enforcement and migration or simply a political bargaining chip to exert leverage over trade partners.
The broader concern is that Trump’s trade decisions appear reactionary rather than strategic. Sheinbaum’s ability to de-escalate tensions with a simple presentation of statistics suggests that the tariff decision was made without fully considering existing data. Meanwhile, Trudeau’s expectation of a prolonged trade dispute signals that U.S.-Canada relations could deteriorate if Trump continues his impulsive and transactional approach to economic policy.
Ultimately, this latest tariff debacle highlights a deep inconsistency in Trump’s leadership style—one that prioritizes short-term optics over long-term economic stability. By repeatedly changing course without a clear strategy, he weakens America’s negotiating power and risks alienating key allies, making future trade agreements even more difficult to navigate.
Source: NPR
A second federal judge, U.S. District Court Judge John McConnell, has extended a block preventing the Trump administration from freezing federal grants and loans potentially worth trillions of dollars. The lawsuit, filed by nearly two dozen Democratic-led states, challenged the administration’s attempt to halt spending, arguing it overstepped constitutional authority.
McConnell ruled that the executive branch does not have the power to unilaterally freeze congressionally appropriated funds, stating that such actions undermine the separation of powers. The court determined that states demonstrated clear harm, as the freeze impacted funding for critical services, including law enforcement, health care, child care, and climate-related initiatives.
Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha criticized the administration’s actions as an attempt to override Congress, calling the funding freeze unconstitutional. Similarly, New York Attorney General Letitia James highlighted the negative effects on essential public services.
While the Trump administration previously rescinded its funding freeze memo, states, universities, and nonprofits claim federal agencies continue to obstruct funding. In a separate case brought by nonprofits and small businesses, another federal judge, Loren AliKhan, extended an order blocking the freeze.
President Trump’s Women’s History Month proclamation begins as a recognition of women’s contributions to society but quickly shifts into an ideological statement centered on gender policy and broader political priorities. While it follows the standard formula of acknowledging women’s impact, it is more notable for what it omits and the divisive framing it employs. Rather than focusing on historical achievements or specific women who have shaped America, the proclamation primarily serves as a platform to reinforce his administration’s stance on gender identity, education, and social policies. This departure from the traditional celebratory tone of such proclamations diminishes its focus on the historical significance of Women’s History Month.
A significant portion of the proclamation is dedicated to Trump’s policies restricting recognition of transgender identities, framed as a necessary correction to “radical ideologies.” The emphasis on executive orders defining gender as strictly biological and prohibiting gender-neutral markers on government documents presents his administration as a defender of “common sense” while deliberately excluding transgender women from the conversation. Women’s History Month is typically an opportunity to recognize the achievements of all women. Yet, Trump’s statement takes a narrow and exclusionary approach, prioritizing a culture war narrative over a broad, unifying message.
Beyond gender policy, the proclamation further dilutes the focus on women’s history by promoting a range of unrelated political goals, including border security, school choice, and economic initiatives. While these topics may have indirect relevance to women’s issues, their inclusion feels more like an opportunistic attempt to align Trump’s broader policy agenda with the theme of Women’s History Month. This approach contrasts with past presidential proclamations, which have typically highlighted key milestones in women’s rights, legislative advancements, and the achievements of historical and contemporary female leaders.
Rather than serving as a unifying statement, Trump’s proclamation uses divisive rhetoric, framing his administration as the protector of women while positioning his opponents as threats to their well-being. The exclusionary language and politicization of Women’s History Month undermine the occasion's intended purpose—to celebrate the diverse contributions of women across all backgrounds and ideologies. By turning this proclamation into a battleground for cultural and political debates, Trump misses an opportunity to foster unity and acknowledge the full spectrum of women’s achievements throughout history.
President Trump’s executive order establishing a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and a United States Digital Asset Stockpile marks a significant shift in federal cryptocurrency policy. While the move signals a formal recognition of Bitcoin as a strategic asset, it raises serious concerns regarding economic policy, financial stability, and regulatory oversight. The order presents Bitcoin as “digital gold,” emphasizing its scarcity and security but failing to acknowledge its extreme volatility. Unlike gold, Bitcoin has no intrinsic value beyond market speculation, making it a risky asset for government reserves. By framing Bitcoin in overly optimistic terms, the order sidesteps critical discussions on its suitability as a long-term store of value.
One of the most glaring issues is the lack of clear economic justification for why the federal government should hold Bitcoin instead of liquidating it. The executive order does not explain how maintaining Bitcoin as a reserve asset benefits the U.S. economy, nor does it address the risks of potential price crashes. The directive also states that the U.S. should acquire additional Bitcoin as long as it is "budget neutral," yet it provides no clear explanation of how these acquisitions would be funded. Without defined revenue sources, this policy raises concerns about unintended costs to taxpayers and potential financial mismanagement.
The order also suffers from ambiguous governance and oversight. While it places the Treasury Department in charge of administering the Bitcoin reserve and digital asset stockpile, it does not establish independent safeguards to prevent mismanagement or corruption. Given the opaque nature of cryptocurrency markets, the potential for misuse, price manipulation, or misallocation of government-held digital assets is a significant concern. Furthermore, the order directs government agencies to indefinitely hold Bitcoin seized through asset forfeiture, which could inadvertently distort the cryptocurrency market by reducing available supply. This raises ethical and economic questions about whether the government should passively hold Bitcoin or actively trade it to maximize value for taxpayers.
Another major issue is the legal and legislative uncertainty surrounding the order. While agencies are instructed to review their authority to transfer Bitcoin into the new reserve, the order does not clarify whether new legislation is required for implementation. The reliance on asset forfeiture as a primary method of accumulating Bitcoin also raises ethical concerns, as it positions the U.S. government as a direct participant in digital asset markets without proper congressional approval. Given these unresolved questions, this policy would be better suited for legislative debate rather than unilateral executive action.
While the executive order acknowledges the increasing role of digital assets in global finance, it lacks a rigorous economic rationale, clear oversight mechanisms, and a transparent long-term management strategy. By treating Bitcoin as a strategic asset without addressing its risks, the order appears more driven by speculative enthusiasm than sound financial governance.