What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
March 7, 2025 Recap
President Trump’s remarks at the White House Digital Assets Summit were a blend of self-congratulation, political posturing, and grandiose claims about the role of the United States in the digital asset space. While the event was ostensibly about digital assets, much of the speech was punctuated by detours into unrelated topics, including the World Cup, past political grievances, and broad praise for attendees.
One of the most striking issues was the lack of depth in policy specifics. The announcement of a “Strategic Bitcoin Reserve” housed within the U.S. Treasury is an unprecedented and radical move. However, the speech provided little regarding operational details, risk management strategies, or economic justifications. The claim that the U.S. will now adhere to the Bitcoin mantra of "never sell your Bitcoin" is an overly simplistic approach that ignores the nuances of government financial management. While accumulating digital assets may appeal to cryptocurrency enthusiasts, it raises serious questions about fiscal responsibility and volatility.
The speech also leaned heavily on political attacks, particularly against the Biden administration, rather than offering a forward-looking strategy. The narrative of regulatory overreach was a consistent theme, yet it lacked a balanced discussion of consumer protections, financial stability, or potential risks associated with deregulation. While promoting the U.S. as the "Bitcoin superpower of the world" may excite industry insiders, the absence of a coherent regulatory framework poses risks for mainstream adoption.
Furthermore, the summit appeared to be a highly curated event, featuring speakers who overwhelmingly praised Trump and framed his leadership as visionary. Attendees' exaggerated admiration, including comments likening his policy speed to that of a tech startup, created an atmosphere that felt more like a campaign rally than a serious policy discussion. The hyperbolic praise, particularly from figures like David Sachs, bordered on sycophantic, diminishing the credibility of the discourse.
While the summit underscored the growing importance of digital assets in the U.S. economy, it failed to provide meaningful clarity on how the administration plans to navigate regulatory, economic, and technological challenges. Instead, it relied on grand statements, political attacks, and a lack of rigorous policy discussion. The event, rather than being a substantive policy forum, seemed designed to generate headlines and reinforce Trump’s image as a champion of crypto innovation without addressing the complexities that come with it.
President Trump answered questions from the press in the Oval Office, but his responses were riddled with contradictions, oversimplifications, and questionable assertions. His discussion of education policy was particularly unclear. He advocated for eliminating the Department of Education while claiming that shifting control to the states would elevate the U.S. to the level of top-performing countries like Denmark and Sweden. However, he failed to explain how removing federal oversight would improve educational outcomes. He contradicted himself by citing China, whose centralized education system is the opposite of his proposed state-led model.
His discussion of tariffs and economic policy also lacked coherence. Trump touted tariffs as a mechanism to bring back American manufacturing jobs yet admitted to granting temporary reprieves to auto companies, undermining his own argument. His claim that markets "prefer stability" clashed with his frequent reversals on trade policy, which created uncertainty. His offhand joke about delaying tariffs past April Fool’s Day also trivialized a serious economic policy with real-world consequences.
When addressing the war in Ukraine, Trump offered a perspective that seemed detached from reality. He implied that Ukraine was at fault for not seeking peace despite the fact that it was defending itself against a Russian invasion. His assertion that Vladimir Putin "wants to end the war" ignored Russia’s continued military aggression, and his claim that if he were president, the war would have never started was an oversimplified take on a complex geopolitical crisis. His remarks reflected a belief in personal diplomatic leverage that he has yet to demonstrate.
On domestic policy, Trump dismissed the bipartisan CHIPS Act as a "tremendous waste of money" and falsely claimed that companies must qualify for funding based on race and gender. This misrepresentation played into cultural grievances rather than engaging with the actual intent of the policy, which is to strengthen domestic semiconductor production. His comments on immigration followed a similar pattern, relying on fearmongering rather than evidence. His broad assertion that "thousands of murderers" are roaming U.S. streets due to immigration policies was not backed by data and seemed designed to stoke fear rather than propose solutions.
Regarding Iran and Middle East policy, Trump was both vague and alarmist. He claimed the U.S. was in the "final moments" of dealing with Iran but provided no details on what that meant. His remarks created a sense of impending action but lacked substantive policy proposals. This tendency to make dramatic claims without clarity contributed to his statements' overall lack of coherence.
Trump’s remarks in this press Q&A were a mix of grandstanding, contradictions, and rhetorical flourishes rather than substantive policy discussions. His casual approach to serious global issues, reliance on hyperbole, and tendency to make sweeping claims without supporting evidence made the session more of a performance than a meaningful engagement with policy or governance.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced the termination of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) for frontline employees at the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), a move seen as an effort by the Trump administration to dismantle union protections. The TSA union, represented by the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), condemned the decision as an "unprovoked attack" and vowed to fight it.
DHS justified the move by claiming that union protections allowed poor performers to remain on the job, hindering TSA’s ability to ensure security. The union strongly rejected these claims, asserting that the action was retaliatory and part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to weaken federal worker protections. The AFGE noted that approximately 47,000 TSA officers would lose their collective bargaining rights.
Democratic lawmakers and aviation industry representatives criticized the decision, arguing it would harm security, reduce workforce morale, and push TSA toward privatization, as outlined in the conservative policy blueprint, Project 2025. Initially set to expire in 2031, the agreement provided protections such as structured pay schedules and grievance procedures, which will now be lost. While TSA management assured that salaries and benefits would remain unchanged, union dues will no longer be deducted from payroll.
The decision aligns with the Trump administration's broader efforts to curtail federal unions and reshape federal employment policies to improve efficiency and security.
The Trump administration announced that it is pulling $400 million in federal funding from Columbia University, citing the institution’s failure to curb antisemitism on campus. This follows an earlier review of Columbia’s eligibility for over $5 billion in future federal grants. The university has responded by pledging to combat antisemitism and ensure student safety while seeking to recover the lost funds.
Education Secretary Linda McMahon emphasized that universities must comply with federal antidiscrimination laws to receive funding. Columbia recently established a disciplinary committee and increased investigations into student activities critical of Israel, sparking concerns about free speech. However, these actions did not satisfy federal authorities.
The funding cut has drawn mixed reactions. Columbia/Barnard Hillel welcomed the decision, seeing it as a necessary step against antisemitism. In contrast, the New York Civil Liberties Union criticized it as an unconstitutional attempt to suppress free speech, particularly criticism of Israel.
Columbia has been a focal point for campus protests against Israel’s actions in Gaza since 2023. Pro-Palestinian demonstrations, including building occupations and encampments, led to multiple arrests and accusations of hostility toward Jewish students. A university task force reported instances of Jewish and Israeli students facing exclusion and verbal abuse. Some students view Columbia’s new disciplinary measures as an attempt to appease the government by stifling pro-Palestinian speech.
Columbia is among several universities under federal antisemitism investigations, including UC Berkeley, the University of Minnesota, Northwestern University, and Portland State University.
Maryland and 19 other states, led by Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown, are suing multiple federal agencies over the Trump administration's mass firings of federal probationary employees. The lawsuit, filed in Maryland, argues that the administration illegally terminated thousands of workers without following required federal regulations governing large-scale reductions in force.
Governor Wes Moore and Attorney General Brown claim the firings have disrupted lives, harmed state economies, and burdened states with increased unemployment claims. Maryland alone has seen over 800 fired federal workers apply for unemployment benefits.
The Trump administration and adviser Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency have justified the layoffs as part of efforts to reduce government waste and inefficiency. However, the lawsuit argues that proper procedures were not followed, including advance notice and consideration of tenure, performance, and veteran status.
The attorneys general seek a court order to halt further terminations and reinstate the dismissed employees. Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia support the lawsuit.