What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
February 10, 2025 Recap
President Trump stated in a FOX News interview that Palestinians in Gaza would not have a right to return under his proposed U.S. “ownership” of the territory, contradicting members of his own administration who had claimed that any relocation would be temporary. Trump’s remarks reinforce his broader plan to reshape the future of Gaza, which he has described as a potential real estate project, calling it “the Riviera of the Middle East.”
Trump asserted that Palestinians would be relocated to “safe communities” away from conflict zones, emphasizing that the U.S. would oversee the development of Gaza but without significant financial investment. “Think of it as a real estate development for the future. It would be a beautiful piece of land. No big money spent,” he said, suggesting a long-term transformation of the region.
His comments have sparked backlash from Arab nations, especially Jordan and Egypt, both of whom have been pressured to accept Palestinian refugees. These countries have resisted the idea, citing security concerns and the broader implications for the long-held vision of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Trump’s remarks also come just a day before meeting with Jordan’s King Abdullah II at the White House, adding diplomatic tension to the talks.
Previously, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt and Secretary of State Marco Rubio attempted to clarify Trump’s position, insisting that any relocation of Palestinians from Gaza would be temporary, aimed at facilitating debris removal, the disposal of unexploded ordnance, and reconstruction efforts. However, Trump’s latest statement contradicts this, indicating that he envisions a permanent relocation of Gaza’s Palestinian population.
Trump also suggested last week that U.S. troops could be deployed to help secure Gaza, though he simultaneously insisted that no U.S. funds would be used for its reconstruction. This has raised significant questions about how his proposed plan would be implemented and who would bear such a transformation's financial and logistical burdens. His comments reflect a dramatic departure from conventional U.S. foreign policy on Gaza, deepening uncertainty about the future of the territory and its displaced population.
President Trump has ordered the United States Mint to halt the production of pennies. While the issue has been debated for a long time, it raises several concerns that warrant deeper examination. Although proponents argue that the penny is an outdated, costly coin that no longer meaningfully contributes to modern transactions, the move disproportionately affects low-income individuals and cash-reliant communities. The economic rationale for eliminating the penny is valid—its production cost exceeds its value, and digital transactions are increasingly dominant—but the policy’s broader implications remain underexplored.
One major flaw in the decision is the potential impact on pricing structures. While economists downplay the inflationary effects of rounding transactions to the nearest five cents, the reality is that businesses may exploit the rounding system to increase prices, subtly shifting costs onto consumers. Canada’s experience showed that while rounding had a minimal impact overall, consumers still ended up paying millions more to grocery vendors. This "rounding tax" could disproportionately burden lower-income Americans, particularly those who rely on cash for daily expenses.
Furthermore, the move is framed as a cost-saving measure, yet the overall savings—about $192 million annually—represent a negligible fraction of the federal budget. While reducing wasteful government spending is commendable, this change alone will not significantly impact fiscal policy. If inefficiencies in currency production are genuinely a concern, why not address the nickel, which costs even more to produce? The absence of a broader monetary policy review suggests this decision may be more about political optics than meaningful economic reform.
The environmental argument is perhaps the most compelling justification for eliminating the penny. Mining and processing of zinc and copper contribute to pollution and resource depletion. However, the administration’s inconsistent stance on environmental issues undermines this justification, making it appear more like a convenient talking point than a genuine policy priority.
A federal court blocked the Trump administration from transferring three Venezuelan immigrants detained in New Mexico to Guantanamo Bay as part of its immigration crackdown. The detainees, accused of ties to the Tren de Aragua gang, sought legal intervention, arguing the government’s actions threatened their legal rights. U.S. District Judge Kenneth J. Gonzales granted a temporary restraining order, opposed by the government, to halt their transfer.
Immigrant rights groups filed the lawsuit, including the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights. The detainees' lawyers stated that the men "match the profile of individuals the administration has targeted for detention at Guantanamo—Venezuelan nationals apprehended in the El Paso area under (false) allegations of ties to the Tren de Aragua gang."
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem confirmed that detainees had already been sent to Guantanamo, prompting advocacy groups to demand legal access for them. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt reported that over 8,000 individuals had been arrested in immigration enforcement efforts since Trump’s return to office, aligning with his pledge to deport millions of undocumented immigrants.
A U.S. judge ruled that the Trump administration violated a court order by continuing to withhold federal funds despite a prior ruling lifting a funding freeze. U.S. District Judge John McConnell had issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) on January 31, but Democratic state attorneys general reported that funds were still being withheld. McConnell reaffirmed that the freeze was likely unconstitutional and ordered all funds to be restored until a further hearing.
The dispute centers on a Trump administration directive freezing federal spending, which Democratic-led states challenged in court. The administration argued that certain environmental and infrastructure funds were exempt and that delays were due to administrative issues, but McConnell stated his order was clear and applied to all frozen funds.
The case is part of broader legal challenges against Trump's efforts to curb federal spending and restructure government agencies. In a related lawsuit, federal employee unions have accused the administration of unlawfully preventing USAID workers from returning to their jobs despite a court order. The Trump administration is appealing McConnell's ruling.
President Trump issued an executive order to eliminate the Federal Executive Institute (FEI), framed as a cost-saving and efficiency-driven measure to reduce bureaucratic excess. However, the order raises critical concerns about its underlying rationale, the potential consequences for federal leadership training, and the broader implications for government effectiveness. The justification hinges on an ideological critique of the so-called “Washington, D.C., managerial class” rather than a data-driven assessment of FEI’s effectiveness. The characterization of federal leadership training as a mechanism that “enlarge[s] and entrench[es]” bureaucracy is a sweeping generalization that lacks substantive evidence. The FEI was established to improve the competence of federal executives, not merely to sustain bureaucratic structures. Eliminating it without a detailed evaluation of its impact suggests an agenda more focused on dismantling government institutions than genuine reform.
Additionally, the order does not provide any analysis of the financial burden the FEI places on taxpayers or the cost savings expected from its elimination. It is unclear whether closing the institute will contribute to budget efficiency without quantifiable data. Moreover, it ignores the long-term value of leadership training in ensuring effective governance, which may outweigh the immediate costs of maintaining the program. By dismantling a program designed to train federal executives, the administration risks diminishing the quality of leadership within government agencies. The order does not propose any alternative training mechanism to replace FEI, raising concerns about how future government leaders will be prepared for complex decision-making and public service challenges. Since other executive training programs exist in the private sector, eliminating FEI without a replacement seems counterproductive.
Furthermore, the order explicitly revokes provisions from previous executive actions, including those dating back to the Johnson and Nixon administrations. However, it does not address whether aspects of those policies remain relevant or beneficial. This order frames the issue in politically charged terms, suggesting that federal leadership training inherently serves bureaucratic self-preservation rather than the public interest. Doing so risks politicizing what should be a functional, apolitical institution.
President Trump’s decision to eliminate the Federal Executive Institute appears to be driven more by ideological opposition to government bureaucracy than by a rigorous assessment of its effectiveness. While fiscal responsibility is an important goal, this order fails to provide a clear cost-benefit analysis, does not propose alternatives to ensure the continued development of competent federal leadership, and risks weakening the very institutions meant to serve the public efficiently.
The Trump administration has evicted the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) from its Washington headquarters by removing it from its long-standing lease, leaving employees unable to enter the building. The move is part of a broader effort by Trump and his ally, Elon Musk, to dismantle USAID, which they criticize for wasteful spending and policies misaligned with Trump’s agenda.
Only ten employees were permitted entry upon arrival at the building, while others were turned away, some told simply to “just go.” The General Services Administration (GSA) has taken control of the building for other government use. Meanwhile, a federal judge has temporarily blocked an order that would have placed thousands of USAID employees on leave and recalled overseas staff.
Trump also signed an executive order freezing foreign aid, effectively shutting down U.S.-funded humanitarian programs. While Secretary of State Marco Rubio secured a waiver for emergency aid, aid organizations say the damage is already severe, leading to the suspension of vital programs in crisis zones like Sudan and Burkina Faso. The Norwegian Refugee Council called the aid cutoff the worst in its history.
Trump has hinted that a few programs might resume under Rubio’s oversight, but experts say restarting operations would require major reinvestment. A court hearing on USAID’s status is scheduled for Wednesday.
Former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, convicted of corruption, including attempting to sell Barack Obama’s vacated Senate seat, was pardoned by President Trump. Blagojevich, governor from 2003-2009, was accused of using Illinois' government for personal financial gain. Evidence included FBI wiretaps where he called the Senate seat “golden.” He was impeached in 2009, convicted in 2011, and sentenced to 14 years in prison. After serving eight years, Trump commuted his sentence. The decision faced bipartisan criticism in Illinois. Upon release, Blagojevich expressed gratitude to Trump, denounced the justice system, and labeled himself a "Trump-ocrat." Trump called his sentence a "terrible injustice."
President Trump announced the dismissal of the Board of Visitors for the military service academies, claiming they had been influenced by "woke" ideology. The boards, which oversee aspects of student life, academics, and operations at West Point, the Naval Academy, the Air Force Academy, and the Coast Guard Academy, typically include appointees from the president, vice president, and congressional leaders.
Trump did not specify who would replace the removed members but framed the move as part of a broader effort to eliminate "woke" influence from military education. This follows past political disputes over board appointments. Trump had added allies in late 2020, but President Biden removed them in 2021, citing concerns over qualifications.
The dismissals align with Trump's recent push to remove diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives across the federal government. As part of this, West Point recently dissolved several student organizations, including the Society of Women Engineers and the National Society of Black Engineers. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has also voiced support for replacing civilian professors with military personnel, though experts suggest this could be challenging due to recruitment issues.
President Trump removed David Huitema, the director of the Office of Government Ethics (OGE), from his position, marking another instance of Trump taking action against a government watchdog. Huitema, confirmed by the Senate in late 2023 after a lengthy delay, was notified of his removal via email. He expressed disappointment and suggested that Trump does not want independent oversight.
Trump appointed Veterans Affairs Secretary Doug Collins as the agency's interim head. The OGE, responsible for reviewing high-level government officials' financial disclosures and ethics agreements, recently released information on Trump’s wealthy nominees. Additionally, Sen. Adam Schiff asked Huitema to review whether tech billionaire Elon Musk was complying with federal ethics laws, given Musk’s extensive government contracts and advisory role in Trump’s administration.
Huitema’s firing follows Trump’s earlier dismissal of multiple inspectors general across federal agencies. Ethics expert Norm Eisen criticized the move, calling it part of Trump’s broader effort to evade oversight.
President Trump's decision to bolster steel and aluminum import tariffs represents a significant escalation in his administration’s protectionist trade policies. While the move is framed as a safeguard for American industry, it raises concerns about its long-term economic impact. Increasing the aluminum tariff to 25% and reinforcing steel import restrictions could provoke retaliation from major trading partners, as seen in previous tariff disputes with China. Historically, such measures have led to counter-tariffs on U.S. exports, particularly in agriculture and manufacturing, threatening American businesses that rely on international markets.
The introduction of "Melt and Pour" and "Smelt and Cast" standards aims to prevent tariff circumvention, yet enforcing these regulations presents a logistical challenge. Countries like China have a history of exploiting trade loopholes, and the effectiveness of U.S. Customs and Border Protection in monitoring complex supply chains remains uncertain. Additionally, while these tariffs are intended to protect domestic production, they risk harming industries that depend on imported raw materials. Higher costs for steel and aluminum could lead to price increases for automakers, construction firms, and appliance manufacturers, ultimately placing more financial strain on American consumers.
Diplomatically, these tariffs could also strain relations with key U.S. allies. Canada, Mexico, Germany, and South Korea are among the largest suppliers of steel and aluminum to the United States, and imposing stricter trade barriers could disrupt existing agreements like the USMCA. Although the administration temporarily delayed tariffs on Canada and Mexico, ongoing uncertainty about future trade policies could weaken economic stability and cooperation. Moreover, the broader threat of imposing tariffs on imported goods risks triggering a wider trade war, further complicating international relations.
Peter Navarro’s statement praising Trump for standing up for American workers “like no other leader has” highlights the administration’s nationalistic rhetoric regarding trade. However, history suggests that protectionist policies often backfire, raising domestic costs and stifling industrial growth. While protecting American jobs is a legitimate goal, this aggressive approach appears more politically motivated than economically strategic.