The Trump Presidency Timeline

Kevin Hassett, director of the National Economic Council and full-time reality-denial specialist, has decided that Federal Reserve economists should be "disciplined" for the high crime of doing math. Their New York Fed paper found that about 90% of Trump's tariffs are being paid by US firms and consumers, which is awkward when the official White House line is "foreigners are paying, don't look at your grocery bill."

Hassett went on CNBC to declare the paper "an embarrassment" and "the worst" in Fed history, which is a bold statement from an administration that treats numbers the way Elon treats NDAs. He insisted consumers are actually better off because prices fell, inflation dropped, and "real wages" rose, a miraculous outcome where Americans somehow get richer by paying more for imports. The economists who pointed out this basic incidence-of-tariffs problem, he says, should be punished for producing analysis that "wouldn't be accepted in a first-semester econ class"—a fascinating critique from the political team that thinks the deficit is just a vibe.

This is all unfolding while Trump is already pressuring the Fed to slash interest rates, cheering on a criminal investigation into Fed Chair Jerome Powell over building renovations, and trying to push out Fed governor Lisa Cook. Meanwhile, every serious analysis—from the Kiel Institute to the National Bureau of Economic Research—confirms the same thing: the US is paying almost all the tariff costs. So naturally, instead of rethinking the policy, the White House is floating professional consequences for economists whose charts don't worship the Dear Tariff Leader. Independent central bank? Cute 20th-century concept.

The Trump administration has finally released $127m in overdue federal funds for the New York–New Jersey Gateway rail tunnel, plus another $127m on top, after a federal judge basically reminded them that "president" is not a synonym for "ransom broker." Construction on the country’s largest infrastructure project can now restart, because the White House temporarily stopped treating a critical tunnel used by 200,000 daily commuters like a prop in a reality show.

This sudden burst of compliance comes after Trump spent months withholding $205m in reimbursements, running the project out of cash and forcing work to stop. During his little funding hostage situation, he allegedly demanded that Washington Dulles airport and New York’s Penn Station be renamed after him in exchange for unfreezing the money. So yes, the sitting president tried to swap essential infrastructure funding for personal branding opportunities, like a discount Mussolini with a merch store.

Governor Kathy Hochul and Chuck Schumer are calling it a huge win for workers, commuters, and the regional economy, because when the bar is on the floor, "the president obeyed a court order and stopped sabotaging a rail tunnel" now counts as a triumph. Trump, naturally, is still raging on Truth Social that Gateway is a future "boondoggle" and "financially catastrophic" — which is rich coming from the man who thinks the real emergency is that there aren’t enough buildings and airports named after him.

The bottom line: a century-old, Sandy-damaged tunnel finally gets repaired not because the administration cares about safety or transit, but because a judge and a political backlash briefly made it more painful to keep breaking things than to let one project proceed. Rule of law 1, petty autocrat 0 — at least until the next appeal.

Pollsters have discovered a new scientific benchmark for American politics: Donald Trump is now less popular than spiders and ants, but still doing better than wasps and mosquitoes. So congratulations to the president – he’s officially performing somewhere between household pest and bloodsucking biohazard. Naturally, this historically unpopular guy with a 61% disapproval rating is insisting on Truth Social that these are the "highest poll numbers" he’s ever had, because reality is for losers and non-felons.

The 2026 midterms loom, and Trump is reportedly telling Republicans behind closed doors that if they lose the House, Democrats will "find a reason to impeach" him. That’s not paranoia so much as a confession with stage fright. A Democratic House could slow-roll his agenda and actually investigate all that "government overreach" the article politely tiptoes around, which is why he’s suddenly discovered the concept of consequences.

Of course, unlike ants, Trump has a few advantages – namely, a firehose of billionaire cash. The RNC is sitting on $95m, Democrats are rummaging in the couch cushions with $14m and some IOUs, and Trump’s Maga Inc super PAC is parked on about $304m like a particularly litigious dragon. Overall, Republicans have over $600m ready to burn on the midterms, while Democrats limp in under $200m, and outside groups are projected to drop another $5bn. It’s not an election so much as a hostile takeover funded by 100 very rich families who spent $2.6bn in 2024 to make sure the rest of us keep arguing about bugs while they buy the government.

So as the midterms approach, America faces a stark choice: let a deeply unpopular president backed by a mountain of oligarch money keep rewriting the rules, or see if voters like democracy more than they dislike spiders. Polling suggests ants, at least, still have a better reputation than Congress.

After spending a week LARPing as the Department of Essential Oils, the FDA has abruptly remembered that its job is to, checks notes, review vaccines. The agency has now reversed course and agreed to consider Moderna’s mRNA-based flu shot after initially refusing to even look at the application — a snub that set off alarms across the medical community and delighted the "Make America Healthy Again" anti-vax fan club.

The original rejection landed right after Health Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr — yes, the guy whose brand is yelling about vaccines on podcasts — helped kill a $500m federal contract for developing mRNA vaccines against bird flu and other nasty strains. FDA commissioner Dr Marty Makary dutifully claimed Moderna just didn’t follow guidance, while a senior FDA official called the trial a “brazen failure” at a press conference, because nothing says sober, science-based regulation like talk-radio adjectives.

Now, under heavy fire from health experts who see this as part of Trumpworld’s broader anti-vaccine crusade, the FDA has agreed to review Moderna’s updated filing, with a target decision date of 5 August. If approved, seniors might get access to a new flu shot before next season — assuming the administration doesn’t decide that preventing disease is too "woke" and replace the vaccine with a Maha-branded immunity prayer candle instead.

America’s first openly aspiring banana-republic landlord has discovered a fun new constitutional innovation: sue the United States for hundreds of millions, then win the election so your own appointees get to decide how big a check the Treasury should write you. Trump has filed massive claims saying Justice Department investigations and the leak of his tax returns "hurt" him, and now Attorney General Pam Bondi’s DOJ has to decide whether to settle with their boss using your tax dollars.

This isn’t a metaphorical conflict of interest; it’s the literal scenario ethics professors use as a joke on the first day of class. Conservative legal veteran Edward Whelan is out here saying this is "outrageous" and a "glaring conflict of interest," which is lawyer-speak for are you people kidding me. Meanwhile, Trump is onstage bragging about how he’ll "negotiate with myself" over a $230 million claim related to the Mar-a-Lago classified documents search and the Russia probe, like a game show where the prize is the U.S. Treasury.

Normally, people who say the government wronged them file claims that are quietly evaluated by civil servants. Under Trump, the claimant is also the president, the alleged wrongdoing includes investigating possible crimes, and the decision-makers are his loyal political appointees whose careers depend on keeping Dear Litigant happy. It’s not government anymore; it’s a long-running grievance lawsuit with a nuclear arsenal attached.

CBS just gave a masterclass in how to be a media giant with the spine of a overcooked noodle. After Stephen Colbert taped an interview with Texas Democrat James Talarico, the network’s lawyers allegedly swooped in to say it couldn’t air on broadcast because it might trigger FCC equal-time rules. Then they reportedly told Colbert he couldn’t even talk about the decision on air. The interview ended up on YouTube, safely outside the FCC’s reach, because nothing screams "land of the free" like having to flee to a Google platform to escape your own government’s speech cops.

FCC commissioner Anna Gomez, the lone Democrat on a Trump-stacked commission, politely translated this mess for the public: this looks like “corporate capitulation” to an administration running a broader campaign to censor and control speech. She also reminded everyone that the FCC has no lawful authority to pressure broadcasters for political purposes, which is adorable given that the whole point of Trump-world is to blur the line between "lawful authority" and "things we can get away with if executives are scared enough." CBS, of course, insists it merely offered "legal guidance"—the corporate equivalent of saying you weren’t pushed, you just tripped over all that regulatory intimidation.

As a bonus subplot in the war on inconvenient speech, Trump is still pursuing his $10bn defamation suit against the BBC over a Panorama program, with a Florida judge now setting a 2027 trial date. So on one side, you’ve got a president weaponizing libel law to punish journalism; on the other, a major network preemptively muzzling its own star host over a Senate candidate interview. Call it the new First Amendment: you’re free to say whatever you want, as long as it doesn’t upset the guy who controls the regulators and the people who own the studios.

Donald Trump has discovered a bold new frontier for US sanctions: not oligarchs, not terrorists, not cartel bosses – but international judges whose job is to prosecute war crimes and genocide. ICC judge Kimberly Prost woke up to find herself lumped in with terrorists on a US sanctions list, her credit cards dead, her Amazon and Google accounts cancelled, and her day-to-day life detonated because the court dared to investigate alleged crimes by the US and its favorite client state, Israel. Nothing says "confident innocent superpower" like financially kneecapping the people trying to enforce the laws of war.

This isn’t symbolic chest-thumping; it’s a coordinated attempt to turn the global financial system into Trump’s personal vengeance machine. Eleven ICC officials – including the chief prosecutor and eight judges – are now sanctioned, with US companies facing fines or even prison if they so much as sell them a plane ticket or let them use a cloud service. Judges like Peru’s Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza are now being targeted by both Russia and the United States for the same crime: participating in a court that issued an arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin and is willing to look at what US troops and allies have done. Seventy-nine countries have already condemned the sanctions as an attack on the international rule of law, which in Trump’s America is basically a five-star Yelp review.

The message from Washington is exquisitely clear: if you investigate us, we will try to digitally erase your life. Book an Uber? Denied. Reserve a hotel? Good luck. Access basic online tools? Hope you printed everything out in 1998. By weaponizing sanctions against independent judges, the administration isn’t just putting them on a terror-style list – it’s broadcasting that any institution that tries to hold powerful states accountable will be treated like Al-Qaida. The Hague is now learning what everyone from whistleblowers to election officials already knows: in Trump’s America, the real crime is doing your job.