Weekly Recap
Keeping you up to date on pressing news from Feb 26 – Mar 1.
Welcome back to Ghost Reader – a tri-weekly publication to help you stay informed when you don’t have the time, access or energy to keep pace with today’s news cycle.
This newsletter consolidates hours of reading into about 10 minutes. And we still know your time is limited. Jump to certain sections or topics. It’s synthesized from many sources and in each section, you’ll find links to free access and subscription-based articles for credibility and deeper reading.
Let’s get into it.
High-Impact Events
Today, we feature a contentious meeting between U.S. and Ukrainian officials at the White House on negotiations to end the war in Ukraine. We also have updates on tariffs planned to take effect this week.
Catch me up on the latest with Ukraine
Friday, President Trump hosted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to discuss a minerals deal as part of efforts to end the war in Ukraine. The meeting dissolved into an argument, resulting in no deal and Zelenskyy being asked to leave the White House.
What should I know?
What was supposed to happen: For weeks, the U.S. and Ukraine discussed a deal to grant U.S. access to Ukraine’s rare earth minerals in exchange for assistance ending the war. Across several drafts, a sticking point is Zelenskyy’s request for U.S. security guarantees (i.e. assistance from the U.S. to ensure security and peacekeeping in Ukraine post-war). Trump and Zelenskyy were expected to sign the agreement during Friday’s meeting. Zelenskyy also went into the meeting hoping to gain access to negotiation conversations with Russia and the U.S., following weeks of being excluded.
What actually happened:
The White House invited media outlets and televised portions of the meeting.
While the beginning featured pleasantries, the meeting took a turn when Vice President JD Vance said the U.S. was trying to engage in diplomacy with Russia and suggested Ukraine wasn’t willing to do so.
Vance also claimed Zelenskyy never said “thank you” for U.S. assistance and that he should be more grateful. (Fact check: Zelenskyy has said “thank you” to the U.S. on record 33 times since the war began).
Zelenskyy tried to recount what Russian “diplomacy” has looked like for Ukraine the past decade, including how Russian President Vladimir Putin broke diplomatic agreements. While doing so, he was repeatedly cut off by Vance and Trump. Vance said Zelenskyy was being “disrespectful” and running a propaganda tour.
Trump eventually said Zelenskyy was “gambling with World War III.” At the end, Trump made a comment that the entire scene would make “good television.” If you’re interested in a deeper dive, check out the 10-minute clip below.
And then what happened: Zelenskyy was asked to leave the Oval Office and eventually the White House. Lunch and a joint press conference were canceled. In a subsequent post on Truth Social, Trump defended his approach and said he was trying to broker a deal through diplomacy. He also said it is clear Zelenskyy is “not ready for peace.” In a Fox News interview, Zelenskyy reiterated Ukraine is ready for peace and the importance of security guarantees. He said the exchange in the Oval Office was regrettable and again expressed appreciation for U.S. support.
How others perceived the event: European leaders immediately reached out to Zelenskyy to reaffirm their continued support to Ukraine. Many congressional Democrats and some Republicans shared criticism, stating it was one of the worst displays of American diplomacy in modern history. Still, many Republicans who were friendly with Zelenskyy earlier in the day later commented he should have been more restrained and grateful in the meeting. Russian leaders applauded Trump and Vance on social media for speaking “truth” about the war.
About the minerals deal: The most recent draft aims to create a U.S.-controlled fund for revenue from Ukraine’s natural resources, with Ukraine contributing half its revenue from the mineral resources in exchange for U.S. assistance ending the war and reinvestment in reconstruction. The current draft only outlines the first phase. While security guarantees are top of mind for Ukraine, the draft did not specify any. Trump has repeatedly said Europe can be responsible for providing security guarantees.
What to expect next: Time will tell. Tensions were simmering between Trump officials and Zelenskyy for weeks, so the next few days will indicate if the minerals deal still seems plausible, as well as where U.S. support leans moving forward – with Ukraine and other European allies, or with Russia.
Now, an update on the tariffs
Thursday, President Trump said the originally planned tariffs on goods from Canada and Mexico will take effect March 4 (Tuesday). He also said an additional 10% will be imposed on Chinese tariffs, meaning any Chinese imports will be at 20%.
What should I know?
Background: In early February, Trump announced 25% tariffs on goods from Mexico and Canada. Those tariffs were paused for a month while Canada and Mexico took actions to increase security at their borders and address illicit drugs – like fentanyl – from entering the U.S. For more details, check out the February 3 edition of Ghost Reader.
Where things stand today: That month is about up. President Trump said while he’s seen progress on reducing the flow of migrants, illicit drugs are still “pouring in.”
… and there will be more tariffs later: In mid-February, Trump announced broad reciprocal tariffs on all imports will take effect in April, following an analysis of potential economic impacts. On Thursday, Trump reiterated that plan. He also ordered a 25% global tariff on steel and aluminum imports set to take effect March 12.
What’s happening behind the scenes: Canadian and Mexican officials are trying to dissuade the Trump administration from moving forward, including in meetings with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick last week. Lutnick is encouraging both countries to match the U.S.-imposed tariffs on China.
What comes next: We’ll see what happens. These additional tariffs come amidst slipping consumer confidence in the economy, with The Conference Board’s Consumer Confidence Index report last week showing confidence slipped 7 points. In addition to concerns about tariffs, the decline was spurred by pessimistic views of current labor markets, business conditions, and future income and employment opportunities.
Federal Government Operations
Let’s recap the most recent updates related to federal workforce performance monitoring and reductions.
More mass firings on the way
Wednesday, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) sent a memo ordering federal agencies to prepare for large-scale reductions in force (RIFs), giving them two weeks to plan for layoffs.
What should I know?
The details: Agencies must submit what they’re calling, “Phase 1 Agency RIF and Reorganization Plans” by March 13. The plans should include the number of full-time employees to be cut and cost savings over three years. They should also include a “significant reduction” in full-time positions and focus on maximum elimination of functions not mandated while still driving quality and efficiencies. The memo also asked agencies to cut their “real property footprint” and reduce their budget top-lines. Agency heads are required to collaborate with the so-called ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ (DOGE) on their plans.
The rationale: To consolidate duplicative functions and management layers, reduce “non-critical” positions, and implement technology to automate tasks.
Who’s exempt: U.S. postal workers, military personnel, political appointees, and positions necessary to meet law enforcement, border security, national security, immigration enforcement, and public safety responsibilities. Any workers who provide direct benefits to citizens (such as social security, Medicare, or veterans’ care), must be reviewed by OMB and OPM before they can be laid off.
How to keep track of the reductions overall: The New York Times is tracking federal workforce cuts. The most recent tally is 30,145 fired or put on leave aside from the nearly 75,000 federal workers who accepted the deferred resignation offer.
… and another round of what federal workers “did last week”
A second email went out Friday evening asking federal employees to respond by Monday again with five accomplishments from last week.
What should I know?
The details: Employees were also told that moving forward, they should submit a list like this each Monday. Language was updated to say workers could decline to respond but the “consequences for failure to provide the requested information will vary depending on the particular email at issue.”
A caveat: While some agency employees received the email from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), others – like General Services Administration (GSA) and the Defense Department – received the email from agency-specific accounts or were told to expect the email at a later date.
If it’ll stand: We’ll see. A current lawsuit challenging Trump’s firing of probationary employees also alleges the first “tell me what you did last week” email violates federal law. The lawsuit says it constitutes a “rule” and that OPM failed to comply with rule-making procedures such as providing notice and a comment period as outlined in the Administrative Procedure Act.
What the Administrative Procedure Act is: A law enacted in 1946 that governs how federal agencies make rules, issue licenses, and take other actions. It also establishes how courts can review agency actions.
Speaking of probationary employees…
Thursday, a federal judge in San Francisco said the firing of probationary employees is illegal, ordering the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to rescind directives sent to some agencies that ordered firings. This is the same case where the “tell me what you did last week” email came up, but that claim was not yet reviewed.
What should I know?
Who brought the suit: Labor unions representing federal workers and civic groups such as the Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks, Vote Vets Action Fund, and Common Defense Civic Engagement, among others.
The details: It alleges OPM unlawfully ordered agencies to carry out the firings, in that the agencies didn’t carry the terminations out at their own discretion, but rather on direct orders from OPM. It underscored OPM doesn’t have congressional authority to manage employees of other agencies.
Who it applies to: The order to rescind the directive only covers agencies where the firings impacted the civic organizations in the suit. This includes the Department of Veterans Affairs, National Park Service, Small Business Administration, Bureau of Land Management, and Department of Defense.
What the Trump administration said: That OPM “asked” agencies to fire probationary employees; not “ordered” them to fire the employees.
What comes next: While the pause on firings only applies to the above agencies, the judge asked the Trump administration to “do the right thing,” indicating an expectation it goes further by applying the ruling to other agencies. The judge also scheduled another hearing for two weeks out with a request to hear testimony from the acting director of OPM and leaders of other agencies to see how they interpreted the order.
Another “buyout” at the Department of Ed
Friday, Department of Education employees received an email offering another “buyout” ahead of what was described to be “significant” layoffs.
What should I know?
What else: Employees who take the offer will receive the equivalent of severance pay or $25,000, depending on what is less. It also said any resignations or retirements would take effect March 31.
If it’s legal: It appears so. There is a Voluntary Separation Incentive Payment Authority in the federal government that allows agencies downsizing or restructuring to offer one-time payments up to $25,000 to employees in “surplus positions or with skills no longer needed in the work force.”
Potential implications: While all federal agencies received the Wednesday memo to expect mass reductions in force, it doesn’t appear any agencies beyond the Department of Education received a second “buyout” like this. While it might be agency-specific, it could also suggest deeper cuts are coming based on Trump administration statements about desires to eliminate the department.
Executive Orders & Legislative Impacts
Today, we focus on a lawsuit that aims to block recent orders to remove all references to diversity, equity, and inclusion within education.
Talk to me about the DEI lawsuit(s)
Another lawsuit was filed Tuesday by the American Federation of Teachers and American Sociological Association arguing the recent Dear Colleague letter sent to K-12 and higher education institutions will do a disservice to education. The organizations seek to block the deadline for schools to comply or risk losing federal funding.
What should I know?
Catch me up on where this is coming from: On February 16, the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) sent a Dear Colleague letter to educational institutions saying race-conscious student programming, resources, and financial aid are illegal, and threatening to investigate and rescind federal funding for any schools that don’t comply within 14 days. That deadline was February 28.
What’s included: Within the “DEI” umbrella, the letter referenced things like personnel decisions, compensation, financial aid and scholarships, administrative support, discipline, housing, graduation ceremonies, and “all other aspects of student, academic, and campus life.” The letter also forbids race-neutral policies that could presume racial consideration (such as elimination of standardized test score requirements) and addresses university-sanctioned programming and curricula, stating anything that teaches “students that certain racial groups bear unique moral burdens that others do not” must be eliminated.
What else this recent lawsuit claims: That the language in the letter is vague and lacks meaningful guidance, making it impossible to comply with.
What happened: On this lawsuit, nothing yet. In a separate lawsuit, though, a judge from the same federal court in Maryland issued a temporary injunction Friday that blocked parts of Trump’s anti-diversity executive orders. Since the Dear Colleague letter is separate from the EOs, the injunction doesn’t apply. As such, the Department of Ed said it’s moving forward with its interpretation of the law and deadline in the letter.
Something to watch: Trump’s executive orders on diversity, equity, and inclusion don’t define the terms. In recent lawsuits, part of the rationale is the orders are too vague and plaintiffs can’t understand what “DEI” refers to. They claim this is leading those groups to self-censor, abridging their freedom of speech. Both in the court hearing and Secretary of Education Linda McMahon’s Senate confirmation process, when asked to define what the administration means by “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” they refuse to do so. This tees up a looming need for the Trump administration to explicitly state what “DEI” means on record or in court testimony, risking potential alienation of portions of Trump’s voter base.
Human Experience & Rights
Let’s look at a coming executive order to make English the national language.
English as the official U.S. language
President Trump is expected to sign an executive order in coming days that will make English the official language of the United States. The order would allow government agencies and organizations that receive federal funding to choose whether to continue offering documents and services in languages other than English.
What should I know?
The background: The EO will rescind a Clinton-era mandate requiring government agencies and organizations that receive federal funds to provide language assistance to non-English speakers.
The rationale: The White House said designating English as the national language “promotes unity, establishes efficiency in government operations, and creates pathways for civic engagement.”
Some data: Recent Census data shows there are more than 350 languages spoken in the U.S., with the most widely spoken aside from English being Spanish, Chinese, Tagalog, Vietnamese, and Arabic. Currently, more than 30 U.S. states have passed laws designating English as their official language.
Why countries might designate an official language: The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance says an official language is what governments use to conduct day-to-day business. Having one or more official languages can also help define a nation’s character and the cultural identity of those who live there.
Potential impacts: It could make it harder for people to become citizens if they’re denied the ability to speak their native language throughout the process. There are also concerns on how limiting government communications might impact U.S. territories like Puerto Rico, where the predominant language is Spanish. It would also make it more difficult for people to participate civically and access critical resources like healthcare and education.
Good for the Soul
Amidst the chaos, let’s find the good. Today, we bring awareness to the National Public Radio (NPR) Student Podcast Challenge and a recent fourth-grade winner who told the story of her family’s immigration journey across three continents.
What should I know?
About the contest: Each year, National Public Radio invites students from around the U.S. to create a podcast and compete for a chance for it to be featured on NPR. Students in fourth grade through college are eligible, with the rules varying by age group.
About the recent winner: A fourth grader from San Jose, CA recently won the challenge, with her podcast titled, “Far from Home: A Story of Forced Immigration” that focused on her family’s immigration journey across multiple generations.
The details: Ameya Desai interviewed her grandfather, whose family migrated from India to Uganda and then her father, who migrated to the U.S. Her father, who was born and raised in Uganda, had to leave when he was in college due to Uganda’s leader ordering the mass expulsion of Asians. He was stateless for years while finishing his college degree and then migrated to the U.S., where he started his life over.
Why Ameya focused on this topic: First, because she loves stories. She would ask her father to tell her a story each day while driving to school. Second, because she cares about displacement – she said through learning about her family’s journey, she learned that stories about displacement aren’t told enough. She said perhaps learning about others’ pain and suffering might help prevent it.
What comes next: When she won, others reached out wanting to share their stories. Ameya is now working on her next podcast, featuring another family’s immigration story.
So amidst all the chaos, let’s be more like Ameya and find ways to create a bit more empathy for others and their experiences in this world.
That’s all for today. Have a great weekend, and remember – let’s keep creating clarity in the chaos.
Did you find this newsletter helpful? If so, please subscribe and share the word.