What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
March 22, 2025 Recap
Donald Trump's executive order titled “Preventing Abuses of the Legal System and the Federal Court” presents itself as a principled stand for legal ethics, but in practice, it functions as a thinly veiled mechanism for political retribution. The directive calls on the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security to pursue sanctions and disciplinary actions against attorneys involved in litigation against the federal government that the administration deems “frivolous” or “vexatious.” While professional accountability is important, this language's vague and subjective nature opens the door to arbitrary enforcement. This is particularly troubling given the order’s pointed references to political adversaries and high-profile law firms, revealing a partisan agenda rather than a neutral effort to uphold the integrity of the legal system.
The order risks chilling legal advocacy rather than protecting the legal process, especially for attorneys who represent clients challenging government policies in areas like immigration, election law, or civil rights. By threatening disciplinary action, loss of security clearances, or termination of federal contracts, the administration signals to the legal community that dissent may carry personal and professional consequences. Such overreach stifles legitimate legal challenges and undermines the foundational principle of equal access to justice.
Furthermore, the executive order distorts well-established legal ethics procedures by co-opting rules like Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and ABA Model Rule 3.1. These rules are traditionally enforced through independent bar associations and disciplinary boards, not through executive fiat. By directing federal agencies to investigate up to eight years of litigation activity retrospectively, the order effectively greenlights a politically motivated legal purge — one designed to punish past opposition and deter future challenges.
Equally alarming is the provision that gives the President’s Domestic Policy Council a role in determining consequences for targeted attorneys, including revoking security clearances and eligibility for government contracts. This blurs the line between executive power and legal oversight, turning what should be a nonpartisan disciplinary process into a politicized tool of enforcement. In short, while the order is framed in the language of legal ethics, its true function appears to be the consolidation of executive power and the suppression of legal dissent. This dangerous precedent threatens the independence of the legal profession and the rule of law itself.
Donald Trump issued an executive order rescinding a list of prominent individuals' security clearances and classified information access. This politically charged directive raises serious concerns about the misuse of executive power. The order targets a wide array of figures—from former Vice President Kamala Harris to former officials like Hillary Clinton, Adam Kinzinger, and Fiona Hill—as well as former president Joe Biden and his entire family. Many of these individuals are either current or former political opponents, critics of Trump, or members of the previous administration. The order lacks any clear justification or evidence that these individuals pose a threat to national security, and its sweeping nature suggests it is motivated more by political retribution than legitimate security concerns.
The order undermines standard clearance protocols by revoking clearances without individualized review or stated cause. It bypasses the nonpartisan procedures traditionally used to evaluate who should have access to sensitive information. It politicizes what should be an apolitical process, creating a dangerous precedent where national security tools are weaponized to punish dissent or opposition. The inclusion of an entire family—namely the Bidens—is especially egregious and further highlights the performative nature of the order. Moreover, the final paragraph clarifies that the memorandum confers no legal or enforceable rights and suggests the action is more symbolic than practical, aimed more at rallying political support than achieving a functional security outcome.
This memo contributes to the erosion of democratic norms by using the levers of government to settle personal and political scores. It may also damage public trust in the integrity of the intelligence community, as it signals that access to information is contingent on political loyalty rather than professional qualification or national need. Overall, the order exemplifies a deeply troubling use of presidential authority, with implications that extend beyond security policy into the broader health of American democratic institutions.
Donald Trump’s Truth Social post directed toward Governor Janet Mills of Maine reads like a theatrical power play aimed at shaming her into submission. Trump claims the State of Maine has already apologized for the Governor’s comments, but it was unclear to whom he was referring. Despite this claim, Trump dismisses it entirely, demanding a personal and “full-throated” apology from the Governor herself. His claim that her remarks amount to an “unlawful challenge to the Federal Government” is legally baseless and hyperbolic, especially considering that governors routinely voice opposition to federal policies as part of normal political discourse. Rather than clarifying what law was allegedly violated, Trump leans on intimidation and implication, a tactic more aligned with authoritarian posturing than democratic debate.
The post is emblematic of Trump’s ongoing strategy to politicize social issues—particularly those involving transgender rights—as a means to energize his base. It also reinforces a troubling pattern where Trump elevates loyalty to himself above institutional processes or constitutional norms. His assertion that the issue “cannot be settled” until the Governor complies with his demands is delusional in scope. It assumes a level of authority he simply does not possess. The performative ending—“MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!”—makes clear that this is not about legal rectitude or public accountability but about spectacle, dominance, and control. In essence, the post is a thinly veiled attempt to bully a state official into reinforcing Trump’s ideological agenda under the guise of demanding civility.
The Trump administration is revoking temporary legal status (known as humanitarian parole) for approximately 530,000 immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela (CHNV), effective April 24, according to a Federal Register notice. This reverses a program started under President Biden, which allowed these individuals to enter the U.S. by air if they had sponsors legally.
Trump argues that Biden’s parole program was an overreach of federal authority. The revocation makes many immigrants vulnerable to expedited deportation, with unclear options for those who may not have alternative legal protections.
Immigration rights advocates and attorneys warn that the decision will cause chaos, break trust with immigrant families and sponsors, and disrupt communities. Lawsuits have been filed to challenge the move.
The Biden-era program was created to curb illegal border crossings while offering legal pathways due to strained U.S. relations with the CHNV countries. Trump may also target 240,000 Ukrainians who arrived during the war with Russia.
Meanwhile, Venezuela announced it will resume repatriation flights for its citizens in the U.S.
Leland Dudek, head of the U.S. Social Security Administration (SSA) and a Trump appointee, reversed a threat to shut down the agency after a federal judge rebuked his misinterpretation of a court ruling. The controversy stemmed from the SSA's data-sharing with Elon Musk’s government waste task force, DOGE, which a judge found likely violated privacy laws.
Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander halted DOGE’s access to unredacted SSA data but clarified that SSA staff could still use the full records and DOGE could access redacted versions. Dudek initially claimed the ruling would force a shutdown of SSA operations, a claim the judge strongly refuted.
The ruling exposed the vast amount of personal information DOGE had accessed, including Social Security numbers, medical records, and bank data. The case has sparked public concern and protests, particularly from retirees worried about their benefits. Over 100 demonstrators gathered in New York to protest potential disruptions, with signs criticizing government interference in Social Security.
Voice of America (VOA) reporters, unions, and Reporters Without Borders (RSF) filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration after the abrupt shutdown of the U.S.-funded news agency. The suit, filed in the Southern District of New York, claims the closure of VOA and its affiliated outlets violated the First Amendment and federal law. Plaintiffs include VOA’s White House bureau chief Patsy Widakuswara and other journalists, targeting the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), acting director Victor Morales, and adviser Kari Lake.
The administration's move—via executive order—halted operations at VOA, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), Radio Free Asia (RFA), and others, placing staff on paid administrative leave. Plaintiffs argue this constitutes unconstitutional censorship and a threat to global press freedom, especially in regions reliant on U.S.-backed journalism.
The decision to place employees on paid administrative leave with no stated disciplinary purpose further highlights the shutdown's arbitrary nature. It’s a bureaucratic muzzle—one that halts news production before it can even begin, in what the plaintiffs aptly describe as “a prior restraint that kills content.”
As noted in a related lawsuit by RFE/RL, the administration's refusal to disburse congressionally appropriated funds exposes another layer of legal defiance. Appropriations laws are not suggestions; they are binding. By withholding funding, the administration isn’t just shuttering a news outlet—it’s flouting the law.
This episode represents a dangerous erosion of America’s longstanding commitment to press freedom, both domestically and abroad. While VOA critics may argue for reform or restructuring, bypassing legal processes and constitutional protections to pursue a political agenda sets a chilling precedent. If allowed to stand, it sends an unmistakable message: independent journalism is expendable in the face of executive will.
The president shows an alarming tendency toward revenge, intimidation, and shallow performances meant to project an image of strength. This might be a trite and hackneyed remark, but he really seems to have the persona of a very insecure Mafia don. I believe the experience of his first administration's inglorious end, shook his confidence more than we knew and his second administration shows the actions of a frightened man. This is a far more dangerous situation for the nation than were he secure in his power. It suggests he might lash out unpredictably and use more force than is necessary in quelling what he perceives as threats. This is very volatile individual and the next four years are going to be very perilous.