Trump's first 100 days: Controversial decisions on DEI, employee layoffs, ending Birthright Citizenship, and more
In his first 100 days of a second term, US President Donald Trump made several controversial decisions that have sparked widespread debate across the political and social spectrum. These decisions have touched upon issues of diversity, civil rights, foreign diplomacy, and education, marking a defining period in his presidency.
Here are some key actions and policies that have captured attention:
One of Trump's first major actions was the dismantling of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs across federal government agencies and the military. These programs, designed to address the nation's history of racial inequality, were immediately scrapped, citing them as "divisive." Trump also moved to target DEI programs at private law firms, public universities, and other institutions that receive federal funding or rely on federal approvals. This move has sparked backlash, with many arguing that it undermines efforts to create a more inclusive society.
Trump's administration also implemented a massive downsizing of federal workers. Tens of thousands of employees were either laid off or offered buyouts. These layoffs came as part of a broader federal workforce reduction initiative, which Trump framed as necessary to curb government inefficiency.
In another significant move, Trump issued an executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship, a right guaranteed under the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. This controversial executive order was immediately challenged in court, with the issue now headed to the US Supreme Court for a final decision.
Trump targeted several elite law firms, accusing them of not supporting his administration's policies. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP became the first of many firms to agree to provide approximately $1 billion worth of free legal work for projects Trump and his administration support. However, other law firms, including Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale, refused Trump's demands and have filed lawsuits against the administration, bringing these legal issues into the courts.
A key environmental policy change came when Trump opened a vast Pacific Ocean reserve, 750 miles west of Hawaii, to commercial fishing. The reserve, originally established by President George W. Bush and expanded under former President Barack Obama to nearly 500,000 square miles, had been protected to preserve endangered sea turtles and coral atolls. Trump's move to lift these protections has sparked concern among environmentalists about the future of marine life in the area.
In a move impacting the LGBTQ+ community, Trump signed an executive order banning transgender student athletes from competing in women's sports. The order has been widely criticised by LGBTQ+ advocates and supporters of gender equality, who argue it undermines the rights of transgender individuals.
Trump's administration also issued guidance to states, directing them to cease using Medicaid funding for gender-affirming care for minors. This decision, part of Trump's broader push to restrict access to gender-affirming healthcare, has drawn strong opposition from advocates for transgender rights.
In a highly controversial moment in international relations, President Trump reportedly berated Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office, a dramatic break from traditional diplomatic decorum. Trump's harsh treatment of Zelensky and subsequent actions led to a significant shift in US diplomacy, raising concerns about America's stance on foreign relations and its commitment to supporting global allies.
Trump also clashed with Harvard University over the school's refusal to comply with his administration's demands. The administration threatened to freeze over $2 billion in federal funding and stripped the university of its tax-exempt status. In response, Harvard filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, claiming that the threat undermined the school's academic independence.
First Published: 29 Apr 2025, 03:48 AM IST
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
19 minutes ago
- Time of India
Why do India's brightest find Harvard easier to enter than IITs?
It sounds different at first, how could one of the world's most prestigious Ivy League institutions be more accessible than India's own engineering strongholds? But for thousands of Indian students each year, that's the sobering reality. Harvard, with its global reputation and ultra-selective admissions, is seen as the pinnacle of academic achievement. Yet for many top Indian students, clearing the difficult Joint Entrance Examination (JEE) for the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) feels even harder. Statistically, they're right. While Harvard accepts about 3% to 5% of applicants, the top IITs admit less than 0.2%, a competition so fierce it borders on the impossible, according to The Economist. And the pressure isn't just numerical, it's cultural, psychological, and systemic. A test of endurance, not excellence India's entrance exams are unforgiving. Students begin preparing years in advance, often sacrificing adolescence for a shot at a seat in IITs or IIMs. In coaching towns like Kota, teenagers live regimented lives, measured not in experiences but in mock tests, cutoffs, and daily rankings. Contrast that with American universities like Harvard, which adopt a holistic admissions process, one that considers essays, recommendation letters, extracurriculars, and personal character alongside academic merit. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Buy Brass Idols - Handmade Brass Statues for Home & Gifting Luxeartisanship Buy Now Undo In short, they assess potential, not just performance. Rejection at home, recognition abroad This paradox plays out year after year: Students who are denied entry into India's top institutes end up accepted by Ivy League schools. It isn't that they're less intelligent; it's that India's system is designed as a sieve, not a searchlight. It filters ruthlessly, often overlooking creative thinkers, late bloomers, and non-conformists. Over 60% of the top 100 IIT rankers still leave India for graduate studies abroad. And now, many who fail to enter IITs at all are finding prestigious opportunities in the West, because, in many ways, they are finally being seen. A pipeline built on pressure According to The Economist, nearly one-third of all international students in the US are Indian. Many pursue STEM fields, drawn by flexible curricula, research opportunities, and comparatively less cut-throat undergraduate admissions. It's no surprise, then that even with volatile visa policies and occasional political hostility, like those during Donald Trump's presidency, Indian students continue to look West. Germany, Canada, and even the Netherlands are emerging as new favourites for Indian families wary of the IIT rat race. These countries offer not just quality education but a reprieve from the emotional toll exacted by India's hyper-competitive model. What does this say about India's system? That Harvard might be more accessible than an IIT is not a compliment to American universities; it's an indictment of India's own educational gatekeeping. Our brightest minds should not have to seek validation from abroad because their potential wasn't shaped into the narrow mold demanded by entrance tests. The question isn't whether Indian students are capable enough for the Ivy League. Clearly, they are. The question is: Why must they leave India to feel worthy? Until we reimagine our idea of merit—from a single number on an answer sheet to a fuller picture of capability and creativity, India will keep exporting talent it fails to nurture. Harvard may keep opening its doors. But shouldn't India do the same? Is your child ready for the careers of tomorrow? Enroll now and take advantage of our early bird offer! Spaces are limited.
Hindustan Times
23 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Donald Trump's US entry ban order kicks in tomorrow: 12 countries, some exceptions
Citizens of 12 countries will not be able to enter the United States from Monday, June 9, following US President Donald Trump's ban order, issued for what he says is an effort to protect the country from 'foreign terrorists'. Donald Trump announced the ban on US entry for citizens of 12 countries earlier this week in an action that stemmed from a January 20 executive order he issued requiring the Department of State, Department of Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence to compile a report on 'hostile attitudes' toward the United States. The countries affected by the latest travel ban are Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan Yemen Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan Venezuela -Green Card holders – Legal permanent residents of the US. -Dual citizens – Individuals who hold US citizenship along with citizenship from one of the banned countries. -Athletes and coaches – Those traveling to the US for major sporting events like the World Cup or Olympics, as determined by the US Secretary of State. Afghan Special Immigrant visa holders – Afghans who worked with the US government or its allies in Afghanistan. Persecuted Iranian minorities – Iranians from ethnic or religious minority groups fleeing persecution. Long-term US government employees abroad – Foreign nationals who have worked for the US government overseas for at least 15 years, along with their spouses and children. Previously admitted refugees or asylees – Individuals granted asylum or refugee status in the US before the ban took effect. Family-based visa applicants – Individuals applying for visas to reunite with US citizen or permanent resident spouses, children, or parents. Diplomats and government officials – Foreign officials traveling on official government business. UN officials – Those visiting the US exclusively for official United Nations business at UN headquarters in New York. Representatives of international organisations and NATO – Those on official visits to the US. Adopted children – Foreign-born children adopted by US citizens. Donald Trump, a Republican, has carried out a series of sweeping actions and issued orders in a massive crackdown on illegal immigration since return to the White House in January. Listing the reasoning behind choice of 12 countries, Donald Trump said these were found to harbour a "large-scale presence of terrorists," fail to cooperate on visa security, have an inability to verify travelers' identities, as well as inadequate record-keeping of criminal histories and high rates of visa overstays in the United States. As an example of why the new curbs are needed, Donald Trump cited the recent incident in Colorado's Boulder, in which an Egyptian national threw a gasoline bomb into a crowd of pro-Israel demonstrators . Egypt, however, is not among the countries facing the travel ban. Responding to the ban, Chad President Mahamat Idriss Deby Itno said he had instructed his government to stop granting visas to US citizens. "Chad has neither planes to offer nor billions of dollars to give, but Chad has its dignity and its pride," Itno said in a Facebook post, referring to countries such as Qatar, which gifted the US a luxury jet for Trump's use and promised to invest billions of dollars in the US.
Time of India
26 minutes ago
- Time of India
Westinghouse pursues US nuclear expansion after Trump orders, FT says
Nuclear equipment supplier Westinghouse is in talks with U.S. officials and industry partners about deploying 10 large reactors, in response to presidential executive orders, the Financial Times reported on Sunday, citing the company's CEO. President Donald Trump's executive orders, which were published on May 23, directed the government to cut down on regulations and fast-track licences for reactors and power plants to shrink a multi-year process to 18 months. Dan Sumner, Westinghouse interim chief executive, told the FT that the company was "uniquely positioned" to deliver the president's agenda because it had an approved reactor design, a viable supply chain and recent experience of building two of its AP1000 reactors in Georgia. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 20 Most Expensive Cars In The World "There is active engagement with the administration, including key points of interface with the loan programmes office, recognising the importance of financing to the deployment of the model," he told the FT. Westinghouse did not immediately respond to requests for comment outside regular business hours. Live Events
