What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
May 22, 2025 Recap
Donald Trump’s black-tie dinner at his Sterling, Virginia golf club with 220 investors marked a stark convergence of personal enrichment and presidential power. While Trump has long mingled with wealthy donors, this event stood out for its explicit link between financial contributions to a Trump-branded cryptocurrency and privileged access to the sitting president. Attendees collectively spent $148 million on the $TRUMP meme coin, with the top 25 investors granted a private VIP reception and the top four receiving $100,000 Trump-branded watches. The use of Marine One to attend the event, followed by Trump’s return to the White House shortly after, blurred the line between private business and public office. Notably, the White House refused to release a guest list, insisting the event was not conducted in Trump’s official capacity. This denial was met with public outcry, including protests outside the venue and sharp rebukes from ethics watchdogs and Democratic lawmakers, who warned of corruption and influence peddling.
Critics argue that the dinner functioned as a de facto auction for presidential access, with Trump monetizing his office through speculative digital assets tied directly to his business interests. An affiliate of the Trump Organization and a related company own 80% of the meme coins, ensuring that the vast majority of the $148 million invested benefited Trump-aligned entities. Chainalysis reported that Trump and affiliated businesses earned over $1.3 million in trading fees shortly after the dinner was announced. The presence of controversial figures like Chinese-born crypto mogul Justin Sun, who attended the dinner despite being under SEC investigation, further underscored the event’s problematic optics and potential national security concerns. Sun, a major stakeholder in Trump-linked crypto ventures, has invested at least $75 million in related tokens and is a formal adviser to World Liberty Financial—another Trump-affiliated entity that recently struck a $2 billion deal involving an Abu Dhabi investment firm.
This event also illustrates how Trump has shifted from once criticizing cryptocurrencies to aggressively promoting them for personal and political gain. Since launching his meme coin on January 17—just days before retaking office—Trump has held a White House crypto summit, promised deregulation, dismantled a Justice Department unit investigating crypto fraud, and signed an executive order establishing a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve. These policy moves have coincided with explosive profits for Trump-aligned crypto holdings, with two of his digital currency investments reportedly generating over $300 million in trading fees since January. The ethical implications are vast: Trump is shaping national crypto policy while holding massive financial stakes in the industry, raising concerns of regulatory capture and conflicts of interest.
The administration’s justification—that Trump was attending the dinner on personal time and in compliance with conflict of interest laws—rings hollow given the scale of the profits involved, the use of presidential transportation, and the context of ongoing policy shifts favorable to the crypto industry. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt dismissed criticism as “absurd,” while Trump spokeswoman Anna Kelly claimed the president is acting in the best interests of the American people. However, such defenses fall flat against a backdrop of undisclosed guest lists, undisputed profits, and deregulatory actions that enrich Trump directly. Senator Richard Blumenthal described the event as effectively putting a "For Sale" sign on the White House, capturing the widespread concern that the presidency is being auctioned off to the highest bidder through novel and opaque digital channels.
Ultimately, the dinner event encapsulates a dangerous new model of political finance: one where cryptocurrency serves as a vehicle for elite influence, personal profit, and regulatory manipulation—all under the guise of innovation and economic growth. Whether or not any specific laws were violated, the episode reveals an administration increasingly willing to sacrifice ethical norms and democratic transparency in favor of self-dealing and opportunism. This blending of statecraft and speculative finance threatens the integrity of both the presidency and the broader regulatory system meant to protect the public from precisely this kind of abuse.
The Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission event was intended to highlight the Trump administration’s first major health policy initiative of the president’s second term, but it quickly devolved into a chaotic mix of personal anecdotes, vague policy gestures, and campaign-style self-praise. While the event attempted to spotlight public health issues, particularly chronic illness and childhood disease, it suffered from an incoherent structure and a barrage of unsupported claims. President Trump’s remarks were rambling and often disconnected, veering from declarations about the U.S. being the “hottest country in the world” to nostalgic anecdotes about past slights and triumphs. His statements frequently lacked medical accuracy and scientific grounding, such as the repeated—and unqualified—claim that the rise in autism rates is “artificially induced,” a clear dog whistle to anti-vaccine narratives championed by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
The event featured a series of loyalist speakers, including Kennedy, Dr. Mehmet Oz, and Senator Roger Marshall, who offered effusive praise for Trump’s supposed bravery in confronting pharmaceutical companies and regulatory agencies. However, much of their commentary relied on anecdotal emotion, populist rhetoric, and a shared grievance against the “corporate lobby” and “conflicted science,” rather than any clear legislative or regulatory roadmap. Trump’s extended discussion of drug pricing reform, including his claim of achieving reductions as high as 89% through a “favored nations” executive order, was factually dubious and internally contradictory. He admitted that during his first term, drug prices declined by only a quarter of one percent, yet insisted this second-term initiative would yield transformational savings without explaining how the legal and political obstacles that stymied his earlier effort had been resolved.
While the emotional appeal to children’s health and family values resonated with the crowd, the actual MAHA policy proposals remained alarmingly vague. References to removing food dyes, banning sugary drinks in SNAP programs, and addressing soil health were never tied to specific regulations or agency action plans. The event functioned less as a policy announcement and more as a populist spectacle, with repeated declarations that the Trump administration alone had the courage to “tell the truth” and “stand up to industry.” Kennedy’s participation added rhetorical weight but also further blurred the line between reform and pseudoscience, especially as he cast himself and Trump as prophetic figures persecuted by the establishment.
The MAHA event underscored the administration’s preference for optics over substance. Though framed as a public health milestone, it lacked empirical rigor, legislative clarity, and administrative accountability. The constant invocation of common sense, intuition, and populist defiance stood in for scientific consensus and policy detail. If this initiative is to evolve into a credible public health strategy, it will need to move beyond stagecraft and into the realm of serious, transparent governance.
Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt held a White House briefing that was a striking display of partisan messaging, campaign-style grandstanding, and inflammatory rhetoric that blurred the lines between official government communication and political theater. Throughout the briefing, Leavitt adopted a combative and triumphalist tone, repeatedly using charged language—referring to undocumented immigrants as “monsters,” judges as “radical,” and legislative opponents as “completely absurd.” While this style may energize the administration’s base, it undermines the role of the press secretary as a conduit for factual, nonpartisan information. Her approach reflected an ongoing trend in the Trump administration of treating press briefings as performance spaces rather than institutional briefings.
Factual clarity was routinely sacrificed in favor of slogans and narrative control. Leavitt insisted that a controversial video promoted by President Trump showed evidence of racial persecution against white South African farmers, citing a single Associated Press caption as definitive proof despite overwhelming international consensus that the “white genocide” narrative is unsubstantiated. She also deflected substantive questions about transparency surrounding the Qatar aircraft donation and related Air Force One costs, contradicting her repeated claims that the administration is committed to openness.
On policy substance, Leavitt’s description of the “One Big Beautiful Bill” was dominated by catchphrases and sweeping claims, but lacked a credible explanation of the bill’s actual mechanics. While she lauded the bill as the “largest tax cut in history” and a centerpiece of the so-called “Golden Age of America,” she offered no supporting data or external validation of its fiscal claims. The inclusion of disparate agenda items—from border wall funding to tax exemptions for tips—rendered the bill more of a political wish list than a coherent piece of legislation. Framing opposition as inherently “radical” and “out of touch” rather than engaging with substantive policy objections further reflected the administration’s unwillingness to foster meaningful bipartisan debate.
Leavitt’s engagement with the press was often dismissive and adversarial. She responded to legitimate questions with sarcasm, insinuated bias among reporters, and treated journalistic inquiries as partisan attacks. For example, questions about potential conflicts of interest related to a private Trump fundraising dinner were brushed aside with deflection and rhetorical indignation. Even when asked about the vetting process for videos shown by the president, she used the opportunity to attack the press rather than offer transparency. Such hostility signals a deep erosion of respect for the press’s constitutional role and turns press briefings into loyalty tests rather than forums for public accountability.
Perhaps most troubling was Leavitt’s extended tirade against federal Judge Brian Murphy, whom she accused of judicial overreach and endangering national security. Her decision to name the judge, cite his political affiliation, and speculate about his personal ideology was an unprecedented breach of White House norms. She framed a temporary court ruling—one allowing deportees to reopen immigration cases and contact legal representation—as an existential threat to diplomacy, law enforcement safety, and constitutional governance. This rhetoric amounted to an attack on judicial independence, painting lawful checks on executive power as sabotage and elevating the presidency above the law.
Leavitt’s briefing exemplified the Trump administration’s continued shift from governance to grievance. It substituted evidence with assertion, transparency with obstruction, and institutional respect with partisan defiance. Rather than informing the public, the briefing functioned as a rallying cry for Trump loyalists and a warning shot to dissenters. This model of communication erodes democratic norms, delegitimizes opposition, and casts the machinery of government as a tool of ideological enforcement rather than public service.
The Trump administration has revoked Harvard University's certification under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), preventing it from enrolling international students for the 2025–2026 academic year. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced the decision, citing Harvard’s alleged failure to comply with federal law. The move is part of a broader campaign by the administration to pressure universities to change policies related to antisemitism, hiring, and campus governance. Harvard condemned the action as unlawful and retaliatory, warning it would seriously harm both the university and the nation.
This development reflects an alarming and politically charged escalation in the Trump administration's war on higher education, targeting not only one of the country’s most prestigious universities but also the foundational principles of academic freedom, due process, and global intellectual exchange. The revocation of Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) certification is less about enforcing immigration law and more about coercive retaliation under the guise of administrative authority.
At its core, the administration’s action undermines the legal and ethical boundaries that protect academic institutions from executive overreach. By tying immigration compliance to vague and sweeping demands—including the turnover of student disciplinary records and surveillance footage—the Department of Homeland Security is effectively weaponizing visa policy to enforce ideological conformity. The lack of specificity in the alleged violations and the extraordinary nature of the punitive measures suggest an abuse of discretion designed to punish Harvard for resisting political pressure, not for any proven misconduct.
The administration’s justification—that Harvard failed to adhere to the law—is unsubstantiated in the public record. Noem's directive offers no transparent explanation for what specific laws were violated, leaving the impression that the measure is rooted in Harvard’s pushback against earlier, similarly coercive demands regarding antisemitism policy and institutional governance. The fact that a prior “mistaken” list of demands included changes to admissions and teaching practices further signals a troubling attempt to federalize control over university autonomy—something constitutionally suspect and historically unprecedented.
Moreover, the impact on students is devastating and callous. Thousands of international scholars, many of whom are on the verge of graduating, now face the threat of deportation or abrupt displacement. Using these students as leverage in a political standoff with Harvard is not only inhumane—it is diplomatically reckless, sending a clear message that the U.S. is no longer a stable or welcoming destination for global talent. This stands in stark contrast to America's long-standing position as a beacon for higher learning and open inquiry.
While the administration frames its actions as a crackdown on campus extremism or foreign influence, this blanket punishment of an entire academic institution bypasses due process, lacks evidentiary grounding, and contributes to an increasingly authoritarian posture toward dissenting or independent institutions. It also risks profound reputational damage to U.S. higher education, with consequences that could ripple through international partnerships, research collaborations, and global student mobility.
The move against Harvard is not a legitimate immigration enforcement action—it is a political stunt with authoritarian overtones, dressed in the language of compliance. It is a warning shot to all universities that dissent or resistance may come at the cost of their ability to educate the world’s best minds. If unchecked, it sets a chilling precedent for federal control over academia based not on law, but on loyalty.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority issued an unsigned order on Thursday signaling that President Trump likely has the authority to fire members of independent federal agencies without cause, marking a significant shift toward a stronger unitary executive. The ruling extended a prior order that allowed Trump’s termination of two Biden-appointed board members—Gwynne Wilcox (NLRB) and Cathy Harris (Merit Systems Protection Board)—to stand while litigation continues.
Though not a final decision, the Court’s move kept in place Trump’s firings and paused a D.C. Circuit ruling that would have temporarily reinstated the two. The majority appeared willing to revisit and possibly overturn the 1935 Humphrey’s Executor decision, which restricts presidents from removing independent agency officials without cause. The liberal justices dissented sharply, warning that the decision opens the door to unchecked presidential power and undermines long-standing agency independence.
Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, warned the Court was telegraphing its intent to dismantle structural agency independence established since the New Deal. She criticized the majority’s approach as a step toward a "subservient administration."
Though Trump has publicly floated removing Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, the Court hinted that firing Fed governors remains a distinct legal issue due to the Fed’s unique quasi-private status.
The case now returns to the lower courts, but the Supreme Court’s decision indicates a growing willingness to grant the president broader authority over traditionally independent agencies, potentially reshaping executive power and agency structure in the U.S. government.
A federal judge in Massachusetts issued a preliminary injunction blocking President Trump and Education Secretary Linda McMahon from implementing an executive order to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education. The ruling also mandates the reinstatement of roughly 1,300 employees terminated in March as part of a major reduction-in-force. Judge Myong J. Joun argued that the administration’s actions effectively hollowed out the department, violating its legal duties and potentially breaching the separation of powers by undermining laws passed by Congress.
The Trump administration had claimed the cuts were meant to increase efficiency, but the judge found no supporting evidence and instead noted significant operational disruption, especially in managing the $1.6 trillion federal student loan portfolio. The lawsuit was brought by 20 states, D.C., the AFT, and other unions, who contended the department could no longer fulfill its legal responsibilities. AFT President Randi Weingarten praised the ruling, calling it a defense of public education, while the Education Department vowed to challenge the injunction on an emergency basis.
Shira Perlmutter, the former director of the U.S. Copyright Office, filed a lawsuit against President Donald Trump and his administration, claiming her May 10 firing was unconstitutional. She argues that only Congress has the authority to remove her from office, as the Copyright Office is intended to operate independently of political interference. Her dismissal, delivered via email, occurred just one day after the office released a report suggesting that AI companies may not be legally protected when using copyrighted works for training purposes—a finding opposed by major tech firms like OpenAI and Meta. Perlmutter is asking the court to reinstate her and block Trump appointees from assuming her role. The case adds to broader legal disputes over Trump’s efforts to dismiss officials in independent federal agencies.
A federal judge issued a nationwide injunction Thursday preventing the U.S. government from revoking the legal status of international students without due process. The ruling, by District Judge Jeffrey White, blocks the Department of Homeland Security from removing students from the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), arresting them, or transferring them outside their jurisdiction. The decision stems from a lawsuit involving two dozen F-1 visa holders whose status was abruptly revoked during a broader federal crackdown on foreign students. Judge White criticized the government's actions as a sweeping and chaotic policy that caused widespread harm and raised concerns that DHS may be trying to evade judicial oversight by shifting tactics mid-litigation. This marks the first nationwide legal pushback amid a wave of lawsuits challenging the administration’s treatment of international students.