What Did Trump Do Today?
June 20, 2025 Recap
Today’s Truth Social posts from Donald Trump are a stark display of disinformation, authoritarian rhetoric, and unfiltered personal grievance masquerading as presidential communication. Far from offering serious leadership, Trump leverages his platform to spread provable falsehoods, attack individuals with juvenile cruelty, and demand loyalty to a narrative that actively undermines democratic norms and constitutional boundaries.
The first post is a toxic blend of election denialism and fantasy. Trump falsely claims “zero border crossings” during his presidency—a statistical impossibility that ignores even his own administration’s DHS data—and continues to push the long-debunked conspiracy that the 2020 election was stolen. His description of Biden as “Sleepy, Crooked” and his baseless call for a special prosecutor reinforces the dangerous precedent of using prosecutorial power to target political opponents. This isn’t mere partisanship—it’s incitement rooted in fiction, designed to delegitimize elections when the outcome doesn’t favor him.
In the second post, Trump attempts to sound diplomatic but fails to articulate what Harvard’s supposed “improprieties” actually are, leaving readers with a hollow promise of a “mindbogglingly HISTORIC” settlement. The post lacks credibility and coherence, reading more like a press release for a nonexistent achievement. His praise for Harvard as acting “extremely appropriately” is laughably at odds with his long history of attacking elite institutions, suggesting that any flattery here is transactional and strategic, not principled.
The third post is particularly unhinged. Trump’s tirade against Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell is not only intellectually dishonest but economically illiterate. Calling Powell a “numbskull,” a “moron,” and a “Trump Hater” for not cutting interest rates to 1–2%—despite inflationary risks—is an authoritarian’s tantrum against an independent institution. Worse still, Trump admits he’s tried to manipulate Powell with different tactics (“nice,” “neutral,” “nasty”), exposing his own intent to politicize monetary policy for personal and electoral gain. His claim that the U.S. has “virtually no inflation” contradicts current data and reveals a willful disregard for truth and fiscal responsibility. The implication that the Fed should lower rates solely to reduce government borrowing costs—rather than to manage inflation or economic stability—shows a reckless contempt for long-term economic health.
The fourth post reveals Trump’s delusional self-aggrandizement in foreign affairs. He claims credit for ending wars in Congo, Rwanda, India-Pakistan, Serbia-Kosovo, and even diplomatic tensions over the Nile—none of which have been independently verified or acknowledged by the countries involved, let alone by international institutions. These supposed treaties are phantom accomplishments, likely invented or exaggerated to manufacture a legacy. His bitterness over not receiving the Nobel Peace Prize is telling: for Trump, peace is not a goal but a trophy he feels entitled to, regardless of whether his claims are real or fabricated.
The final post is perhaps the most vile: a vitriolic, misogynistic attack on Fox News contributor Jessica Tarlov, rooted not in policy disagreement but personal contempt. Trump mocks her voice and “manner,” calls her a disgrace to broadcasting, and falsely asserts that she lies about polling, even as he cites cherry-picked and unreliable polls to construct a fantasy in which he has already won the 2024 election “in a Landslide.” The attack isn’t just petty—it’s an attempt to enforce ideological purity at a network already known for its pro-Trump leanings. By framing Tarlov’s presence as a betrayal and a threat, he incites his base to reject even the mildest dissent, further radicalizing the media ecosystem around him.
In total, these posts present a portrait of a man unmoored from reality, obsessed with revenge, and increasingly hostile to the institutions of democracy. They are not just beneath the dignity of a former president—they are actively corrosive to civil society. Rather than promote leadership, policy, or vision, Trump’s Truth Social feed functions as a weaponized stream-of-consciousness, deploying conspiracy, propaganda, and rage in place of governance.
Donald Trump's gaggle at Morristown Municipal Airport was, as usual, a rambling and disjointed performance that blended diplomatic boasts, national security ambiguities, and domestic fear-mongering with little coherence or factual consistency. He opened with self-congratulatory remarks on a supposed Rwanda–Congo peace settlement, claiming personal credit and praising his administration, but offered no substantive details, timelines, or corroborating context. This was quickly followed by sweeping claims of diplomatic breakthroughs with India, Pakistan, Serbia, and Kosovo—all lumped together without explanation, as if diplomacy were a checklist rather than a complex, evolving process.
Trump’s commentary on Iran revealed an alarming casualness about war and peace. He equivocated on the possibility of military action, dismissed intelligence assessments out of hand—particularly contradicting Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard—and implied that his own instincts were more reliable than official findings. His rationale for opposing Iran’s civilian nuclear energy use was reductionist and illogical: because Iran has oil, he suggested, they have no need for nuclear energy, disregarding sovereign energy policy rights and international norms.
He further muddied U.S. foreign policy by deriding European involvement in negotiations and mocking diplomacy with Iran, reducing it to a power game: “if somebody’s winning it’s a little bit harder to do than if somebody’s losing.” His statements about a potential Nobel Peace Prize came off as petulant and narcissistic, implying a sense of entitlement rather than humility or statesmanship.
Domestically, Trump veered into fear-driven rhetoric about immigration, conflating long-term undocumented farm workers with “murderers” and “drug lords” without evidence. He dangled the idea of farmers acting as immigration guarantors, a legally dubious and logistically impractical concept, while insisting that his mass deportation policy would somehow distinguish between good and bad immigrants. His assertion that “stone cold murderers” were allowed in under past administrations was delivered without substantiation and reeked of scapegoating.
His comments on Los Angeles were inflammatory and dishonest. He falsely claimed credit for restoring order in the city by sending in the military and accused Governor Gavin Newsom of gross incompetence without engaging with the underlying issues.
Trump's offhand dismissal of uniformed ground warfare in Iran as “the last thing you want” was quickly contradicted by his ambiguous threat timeline (“two weeks would be the maximum”), revealing a dangerous lack of clarity on military planning. He ended the session with flippant remarks about transgender healthcare legislation and multiple references to being in physical danger while surrounded by the press, further adding to the chaotic tone of the gaggle.
Overall, the appearance was marked by bluster, incoherence, and a reckless approach to both foreign and domestic policy. The president appeared more interested in self-aggrandizement than informed governance, relying on exaggerated achievements, personal grievances, and improvisational policy claims rather than substantive engagement with reality.
Vice President JD Vance’s remarks during his visit to Los Angeles represent a deeply politicized and inflammatory framing of immigration enforcement and civil unrest, built on hyperbole, misinformation, and a sustained effort to shift blame to local Democratic leaders. His repeated assertions that Los Angeles has been “destroyed” by “rioting” are flatly contradicted by local media and public safety reports, which indicate no ongoing widespread violence or structural devastation. The use of alarmist rhetoric—referring to a “very serious threat” to federal buildings, “violent mobs,” and “radical left-wing agitators”—serves less to inform the public than to construct a narrative of crisis that justifies federal intervention and militarization of civilian spaces. His depiction of Governor Gavin Newsom and Mayor Karen Bass as provocateurs who actively incite violence is not only unsubstantiated but also recklessly inflammatory.
Moreover, Vance conflates the presence of undocumented immigrants with violent criminality and organized rioting, painting a wildly exaggerated picture of immigration as an existential threat. His broad generalizations—such as claiming that “15 to 20 million illegal aliens” were allowed in by Joe Biden, or suggesting that protesting federal agents are tantamount to supporting drug cartels and child sex traffickers—rely on dehumanizing language and false equivalences. This approach undermines meaningful discourse around border enforcement, constitutional rights, and due process. Additionally, his attack on elected Democratic lawmakers as publicity-seeking “grandstanders” who “hate the idea of the United States of America having a border” smacks of partisan caricature, not statesmanship. Vance’s remarks are less an attempt to grapple with the complexities of immigration policy or civil order and more a performance of ideological warfare, designed to vilify political opponents and rally a base already primed to view dissent as sedition.
His deliberate misnaming of Senator Alex Padilla as “José Padilla” underscored a deeper, more troubling tone of disrespect and dog-whistle politics. By referring to a sitting U.S. senator by the name of a convicted terrorist — José Padilla, who was sentenced for aiding al Qaeda — Vance not only flubbed a basic fact, but arguably made a racially charged insinuation. His spokesperson’s explanation that Vance “must have mixed up two people who have broken the law” is both glib and inflammatory, given that Senator Padilla was neither charged nor arrested during the incident in question. That Padilla was momentarily detained and released after a peaceful protest-related disruption hardly warrants a comparison to a man once accused of plotting a dirty bomb attack. Vance served with Padilla in the Senate; this was not an innocent mistake — it was a calculated slight that traded in identity-based disrespect to score political points.
In essence, this speech marks a troubling embrace of authoritarian themes: militarized law enforcement as the ultimate solution, protest as illegitimate, and disagreement with the federal government as a threat to national security. While it positions the Trump administration as a champion of law and order, it does so by distorting facts, stoking fear, and presenting a deeply divisive vision of the nation—one where American cities are treated as war zones and political opponents as enemies of the state.
Mahmoud Khalil, a pro-Palestinian activist and lawful U.S. resident, was granted bail by a federal judge after being detained in March under the Trump administration's immigration crackdown. U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz initially ruled that Khalil could not be detained or deported based on national security claims made by Secretary of State Marco Rubio. However, the administration later asserted a different legal basis for holding Khalil, related to omissions in his green card application. Despite previously siding with the government on that secondary basis, Farbiarz released Khalil on bail, finding him neither a flight risk nor a danger. Khalil contends his arrest was retaliation for protected speech. His detention drew national attention, especially as his wife gave birth while he was jailed.
A federal judge temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s attempt to prevent Harvard University from enrolling international students, marking a partial legal win for the university. Judge Allison Burroughs' order ensures Harvard can continue hosting foreign students while the case proceeds, but reaffirms the federal government’s authority to review such arrangements under existing laws.
The dispute began when the Department of Homeland Security revoked Harvard’s certification to host international students, allegedly as retaliation for Harvard’s refusal to comply with White House demands on issues like campus protests, hiring, and admissions. The move would have forced thousands of international students to leave or risk violating visa rules. Harvard sued, and the judge swiftly halted the revocation. In response, Trump issued a presidential proclamation citing new legal grounds to bar these students, which Burroughs also blocked temporarily.
Harvard says the administration’s actions created chaos and fear among international students, many of whom considered transferring. Despite the turmoil, most students remain hopeful, although delays persist for some, such as a prospective graduate student from China who is still waiting on visa approval despite court rulings.
This conflict is part of a broader clash between the Trump administration and Harvard, involving over $2.6 billion in cut federal grants, threats to revoke tax-exempt status, and political pressure over perceived liberal bias and antisemitism. Trump has recently claimed progress in negotiations with Harvard, but the university insists it will not abandon its core, legally protected values.
The Trump administration announced it would stop enforcing a 2024 Biden-era labor rule that protected foreign farmworkers on H-2A visas who engage in workplace organizing. The Department of Labor cited ongoing federal court injunctions as creating legal uncertainty and operational challenges for farmers, justifying the suspension. The H-2A program, which allows farms to hire foreign seasonal workers when no local labor is available, has expanded significantly, with nearly 378,000 positions certified in 2023. The move aligns with Trump’s broader immigration enforcement agenda, though he recently acknowledged plans to mitigate the impact of labor shortages on agriculture and hospitality sectors.
Senior White House adviser Kari Lake issued layoff notices to 639 employees of the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), targeting Voice of America (VOA) and other government-funded international broadcasters. The move follows President Trump’s March executive order to reduce the agency's size by 85%, totaling 1,400 positions. Lake framed the cuts as a crackdown on a “bloated, unaccountable bureaucracy,” accusing the agency of dysfunction and bias.
Critics, including VOA journalists and executives, warned the layoffs—effective September 1—will cripple U.S. international broadcasting and damage efforts to counter foreign propaganda. Lawsuits have been filed by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, and individual VOA journalists. Despite briefly reviving VOA’s Persian-language service during the Iran-Israel conflict, even some of those staffers received layoff notices.
Lake also reiterated unsubstantiated claims about security vulnerabilities in the agency, echoing concerns raised during Trump’s first term. She is scheduled to testify before the House Foreign Affairs Committee under the title “Spies, Lies and Mismanagement.” VOA reporters, including White House correspondent Anita Powell, denounced the firings as unjust and harmful to U.S. public diplomacy.
A federal judge temporarily blocked the Trump administration from withholding transportation funds from 20 Democratic-led states that refused to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. The states sued after Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy threatened to cut off funding unless they complied with President Trump's immigration policies. U.S. District Judge John McConnell ruled that the states could suffer irreparable harm, including loss of billions in funding and damage to community trust in law enforcement.
Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell praised the ruling as a protection against unlawful coercion. In contrast, Secretary Duffy called it “judicial activism” and vowed to keep fighting. The April “Duffy Directive” warned states to cooperate or risk losing federal funds, though no money had yet been withheld. The states argued that the directive forced them to choose between violating their sovereignty and losing essential infrastructure funding. The government countered that the Department of Transportation has the authority to set such conditions and that releasing funds now could hinder recovery if the administration ultimately prevails.