Inside the Oval Office: Trump Signs Two Executive Orders on Trade and the Federal Workforce
President Donald Trump used a June 3, 2026 Oval Office signing session to celebrate the long-awaited completion of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool renovation, sign two sweeping executive orders — one cracking down on customs and trade enforcement and one accelerating the removal of policy-making federal employees — and field a rapid-fire round of press questions that touched on Iran’s fragile ceasefire, the administration’s disputed anti-weaponization fund, his criticism of Democratic-run cities, and his upcoming birthday. The session brought together U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Rodney Scott, White House Counselor Peter Navarro, and White House Counsel Will Scharf, who collectively framed the customs order as a potential $80–100 billion crackdown on tariff evaders and counterfeit goods. Trump, in characteristic form, ranged freely across topics — defending his administration’s border record with statistics that fact-checkers say significantly overstate the case, offering cautious optimism about a potential Iran nuclear deal (“it could happen like over the weekend”), and launching pointed attacks on CNN and Democratic governors in Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York. Assistance from Claude AI.
Participants
| Name | Title / Role |
|---|---|
| Donald Trump | President of the United States |
| Peter Navarro | Senior Counselor to the President (trade and manufacturing) |
| Rodney Scott | Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) |
| Will Scharf | White House Counsel |
| James Sherk | Domestic Policy Council staff; lead architect of the federal workforce EO |
| Unidentified CBP official | Spoke briefly on shell company problem in customs enforcement |
| Multiple press correspondents | Asked questions on Iran, weaponization fund, communism, birthday |
Section 1: The Great Reflecting Pool — A 104-Year Problem Gets Fixed (They Say)
Trump opened the session not with the executive orders but with a lengthy, evidently heartfelt celebration of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, the iconic 2,500-foot-long body of water that stretches between the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monument.
“From 1922 to present, it really never worked,” Trump said, describing a pool that had leaked continuously since it was built. “It leaked and it was bad and it looked terrible. It’s supposed to be beautiful.” He held up a visual comparison showing the pool’s length against some of the world’s tallest skyscrapers laid on their sides — the Empire State Building, the World Trade Center, the Sears Tower — and noted that two or three of those buildings laid end-to-end still wouldn’t span the pool’s full length.
The renovation, Trump said, was being completed that very day at 4:00 p.m., with water set to begin flowing into the pool for the first time in its properly functioning state. The surface has been coated in what he described as a “very special material” and painted a color he called “American Flag Blue” — replacing what was previously a gray concrete and stone surface prone to cracking and leakage.
Trump attributed the success to Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum, calling him “absolutely amazing,” and said the renovation came in at a tiny fraction of what his predecessors spent. He said the pool would last “50 to 100 years before you have to do anything with it.”
He also delivered a lengthy aside comparing his own January 6, 2021 rally crowd to the crowd at Martin Luther King Jr.’s 1963 “I Have a Dream” speech — both of which took place at the Reflecting Pool. “They said he had a million people and I had 25,000 people. And yet, if you look at the picture of comparison… I had more people. They were tighter.” He added: “This is my first glimpse into politics.”
Fact-Check — Reflecting Pool Cost Claim: ⚠️ Misleading.
Trump claimed that combined Obama-Biden spending on the pool totaled “$142 million” and that both failed. The actual record is significantly different. The Obama administration oversaw a major Reflecting Pool renovation from 2010 to 2012 that cost approximately $34–35 million (Associated Press, 2012; Snopes, 2026). The Biden administration did not conduct any major Reflecting Pool work. Trump’s renovation, which he initially described as a $1.5 million coating project, has grown to at least $13.1 million in federal spending records, according to The New York Times — significantly more than Trump has publicly acknowledged, though still far less than the Obama-era project. Trump’s characterization of having spent “a tiny fraction” of what his predecessors spent requires important context: the projects were substantially different in scope. The Obama renovation was a full structural rebuild; Trump’s project applied a new industrial coating over existing granite rather than replacing the basin. Neither figure reaches the $100 million threshold Trump has repeatedly cited (AP Fact Focus, 2026).
Fact-Check — Trump January 6 Crowd vs. MLK “I Have a Dream”: ❌ False.
Trump’s claim that his January 6 crowd was larger than or equal to the crowd at King’s 1963 March on Washington is not supported by any crowd science. The 1963 March on Washington drew an estimated 250,000 people — not “a million,” as Trump restated — while the January 6, 2021 rally at the Ellipse drew estimates in the tens of thousands, with Trump himself originally citing “25,000.” Trump’s argument that the photos show comparable crowd density has been repeatedly examined by photo analysts and historians, who have consistently found the 1963 march to have been substantially larger (National Park Service records; news coverage at the time). The crowd comparison remains one of the most persistently recirculated falsehoods in Trump’s political career.
Section 2: Washington, D.C. — A “Beautiful City” Restored
Building on the Reflecting Pool news, Trump painted an expansive portrait of Washington, D.C. as a city reborn under his watch. He said the city was now “a very safe city” — a status he contrasted sharply with conditions “14 months ago” when he took office.
“The encampments, the homeless are no longer sitting in the middle of the park,” Trump said. “The level of beauty of the city is incredible.” He mentioned Lafayette Park — the plaza directly north of the White House — as a renovation nearly complete and on track to open before July 4th. He said 28 fountains across Washington were now operational after having been broken or dirty for decades, including the fountain at Union Station.
“People are coming here,” he said. “The restaurants are all going out of business, as you know… now the restaurants are hot as — in fact, if anything, we don’t have enough restaurant space. They’re all reopening. It’s become vibrant.”
He attributed Washington’s safety improvement partly to the removal of “close to 5,000 hard line criminals” from D.C. who, he said, had entered through the Biden-era open border.
Section 3: Executive Order #1 — Strengthening Customs Enforcement
After the Reflecting Pool remarks, Trump pivoted to the day’s primary legislative business. CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott provided the first briefing.
What the EO Does — Scott’s Explanation
“We’re talking about rolling out a customs EO,” Scott said. “It’s America first in the trade environment. Like we’ve been doing on the border, people are used to the illegal immigration, the narcotics. We’ve locked that down. This is literally taking the same principles and applying them to trade to protect American industry.”
Scott described a pattern in which foreign actors and domestic importers were “undercutting our import/export rules, the tariffs, to literally undermine American businesses.” He said the EO would do three things: increase the amount of data CBP collects so officials can make “conscious decisions about who and what comes into this country”; begin holding importers accountable for “threatening products”; and use existing rules while recommending new legislation.
He specifically called out shell companies as a mechanism that bad actors use to evade accountability: “People have basically been able to hide behind shell companies. They move from one to the next and then we can’t go after them. This EO really enables us to crack down and hold people accountable.”
Scott drew a direct parallel to the administration’s physical border security effort: “Customs and Border Protection gets a lot of attention for the border wall, everything else. This is going to be basically the equivalent in the trade environment.”
Navarro’s Revenue Estimate
Peter Navarro framed the EO in financial terms, projecting major government savings. “I will guarantee you, the first year will be at least $15 billion, next year, $25 billion. And out there, there’s $80 billion to $100 billion that the tariff evaders are doing. Plus, we’re going to stop more of the fentanyl coming in and we’re going to crack down on counterfeits. This is good for America.”
Earlier in his remarks, Navarro had described it as “a $20 billion to $30 billion a year EO” — suggesting the estimates were still being settled.
Fact-Check — Customs EO Revenue Estimates: ℹ️ Unverifiable.
Navarro’s projections of $15–30 billion in first-year revenue recovery and $80–100 billion in total tariff evasion are internal administration estimates. No independent source has yet evaluated the underlying methodology for these figures, which have been presented without supporting data or documentation. They should be treated as aspirational projections rather than confirmed figures.
Scharf’s Legal Summary
White House Counsel Will Scharf summarized the EO in more precise terms. He described it as ensuring that “importers of record, other people moving goods across our border are accurately reporting what they’re bringing in, that contraband, that illegal goods aren’t being brought across the border, and that goods being brought in are being accurately accounted for, for purposes of duties and tariffs.”
Scharf added: “This executive order will launch a series of bold new steps that I think we as an administration believe will result in the tightest, most controlled border in American history.”
Section 4: Executive Order #2 — Federal Workforce Accountability Reform
The second EO addressed a long-standing complaint from conservative reform advocates: the difficulty of firing federal employees in policy-making roles, even for serious misconduct or incompetence.
Will Scharf introduced it: “Currently, with respect to many policy making positions in the departments and agencies across government, we lack the ability — because of existing personnel rules — to effectively discipline or promote people who are in policy-making roles.”
James Sherk of the Domestic Policy Council, whom Trump praised as the EO’s primary architect, explained the core problem: “It’s been a long-standing problem that it is almost impossible to fire a federal employee, even in cases of serious misconduct. And as a result, if you have employees who are trying to undermine the wishes of the American people by pushing their own agenda, or just incompetent at what they’re doing, agencies have a long-standing, difficult time getting rid of them.”
Background: What Is the Federal Civil Service?
Federal civil service employees — roughly 2 million of them — are protected by a system designed over more than a century to prevent politically motivated firings. Under current rules, disciplining or removing a federal employee, even for cause, can take a year or more and requires extensive documentation and appeals processes. This protection was originally intended to prevent the “spoils system” in which every new president fires thousands of career employees and replaces them with political loyalists. The Trump administration has argued these protections go too far, allowing employees to obstruct presidential priorities. Critics argue the protections are essential to a functioning, non-partisan civil service.
Sherk said the EO would address “senior policy-influencing roles” — employees who control agency-wide policies. Under the new order, those employees would be “treated like private sector workers”: hired on merit, but fireable more quickly when they undermine the administration’s direction. “If they’re messing up, then they can be removed quickly rather than taking a year or longer to get rid of them,” Sherk said.
Trump praised Sherk warmly, joking that Sherk looked like he’d been cast from “central casting” for this role.
Section 5: Trump on the Border — The Wall, the Numbers, and Fentanyl
Before taking press questions, Trump delivered a lengthy defense of the administration’s border record, framing the customs EO as a continuation of his physical border enforcement.
The Wall
“I built over a thousand miles of wall,” Trump said, describing the barrier as essential to reducing illegal crossings. “Without that, you could have never done it.”
Fact-Check — “Over a Thousand Miles of Wall”: ❌ False.
During Trump’s first term (2017–2021), the administration completed approximately 458 miles of primary and secondary border barriers, including replacements of older, smaller structures. Truly new barrier built in locations where none previously existed totaled only about 52 miles, according to CBP data reviewed by PolitiFact (2023). Trump’s original 2016 campaign promise was 1,000 miles of wall. No independent analysis places the total anywhere near that figure. The claim that Trump “built over a thousand miles of wall” is false by any counting methodology (PolitiFact, 2023; GAO, 2021).
Zero Illegal Crossings
Trump stated that illegal border crossings had fallen to “zero, zero, zero” on a monthly basis: “Hard to believe, but the numbers come out. Every month they come out, zero, zero, zero.”
Fact-Check — “Zero” Border Crossings: ⚠️ Misleading.
Trump appears to be conflating two different metrics. CBP data confirms that U.S. Border Patrol has maintained zero releases — meaning no one apprehended at the border has been released into the U.S. interior — for more than ten consecutive months as of early 2026 (DHS, 2026). Border encounters have also fallen to historic lows: CBP recorded roughly 6,478 southwest border apprehensions in December 2025, a 96% reduction from the Biden-era monthly average. But encounters are not zero. The statement “zero, zero, zero” as a description of border crossings is inaccurate; the accurate term is “zero releases” into the U.S. interior, which represents a genuine and significant achievement, but not the total absence of crossings (CBP, 2026; DHS, 2026).
“25 Million” People During Biden Years
Trump said: “We had millions of people, 25 million people… came in during the Biden years.”
Fact-Check — “25 Million” Biden-Era Entrants: ❌ False.
This claim is a significant exaggeration. Through December 2024 (the last full month of the Biden administration), CBP recorded under 11 million nationwide encounters with migrants over Biden’s full term — and many of those were rapidly expelled (CNN, June 3, 2026). Even when adding estimates for “gotaways” (migrants who evaded detection), House Republicans estimated roughly 2.2 million in that category, still placing the realistic total far below 25 million. The 25 million figure has no basis in government data and has been consistently rated false by multiple fact-checking organizations.
Fentanyl Down “59 Percent”
“We have fentanyl coming in 59 percent less,” Trump said.
Fact-Check — Fentanyl Down 59 Percent: ⚠️ Approximately Accurate, with Important Context.
The administration’s own CBP data puts fentanyl trafficking at the southern border down approximately 56% compared to the same period in 2024 (DHS, September 2025). Trump’s 59% figure is close to but slightly above the government’s own stated figure. Importantly, context matters here: the decline in fentanyl seizures began under the Biden administration in spring 2023 and reflects, in part, declining demand driven by a historic drop in U.S. opioid overdose deaths that predates Trump’s second term. The American Immigration Council (2025) notes that fentanyl is primarily smuggled through legal ports of entry by U.S. citizens, not by migrants crossing illegally between ports — meaning the administration’s border crackdown may have less direct impact on fentanyl than Trump’s framing implies.
11,888 Murderers Deported
Trump repeated his oft-cited figure: “11,888 were murderers. I say it all the time. 50 percent of them — they murdered more than one person.”
Fact-Check — “11,888 Murderers” Deported: ℹ️ Unverifiable/Contested.
This specific figure — which Trump has repeated in numerous venues — refers to ICE’s stated count of individuals with homicide-related charges or convictions who were removed from the United States. The statistic reflects ICE’s internal records, which are difficult to independently audit. Critics, including immigration researchers, note that “charges” do not equal convictions, and that some of the individuals counted may have had charges that were later reduced or dismissed. The sub-claim that 50% murdered more than one person appears to be extrapolated rather than derived from a publicly documented source.
Section 6: Press Q&A — Iran and the Fragile Ceasefire
The first press question addressed a significant geopolitical moment: Iran’s apparent ballistic missile strike on U.S. ally Kuwait, which occurred even as ceasefire negotiations were ongoing.
Reporter: “Given Iran’s attacks on Kuwait — this latest attack on Kuwait, is the ceasefire with Iran still on?”
Trump’s Response:
Trump’s answer was deliberately vague but revealing. He said the attack happened “not a big deal” and that the U.S. had “nipped it in the bud very quickly.” He provided a notable piece of context: “We hit them pretty hard the night before and actually last night. And when it was explained to me, I said, all right… some people would say they were slightly provoked because we took a strong action for a different reason, so they were reciprocating.”
He described the overall ceasefire as intact but redefined the concept of ceasefire for the region with a candid aside: “Pretty much the way it is. It’s a different part of the world. You know, I’d say in that part of the world, ceasefire is when you’re shooting in a more moderate manner.”
He then offered the most specific optimism yet about a nuclear deal: “I hear the negotiation itself has gone very well, actually. Very well… if it happens and it might not happen, you know, who knows? But if it happens, it could happen like over the weekend.”
Background: The Iran Situation as of June 3, 2026
The U.S. and Israel launched military strikes against Iran on February 28, 2026, targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities. A fragile ceasefire took effect in early April 2026. Since then, U.S. B-2 bombers have struck multiple Iranian nuclear sites, including underground facilities. The International Atomic Energy Agency’s equivalent body confirmed substantial destruction at those facilities. The U.S. Navy has maintained a naval blockade, which Trump described as “incredible — not one ship has gotten through unless we wanted it to.” As of late May 2026, U.S. and Iranian negotiators reached a tentative 60-day memorandum of understanding to extend the ceasefire and begin formal nuclear talks, but Trump had not yet given final approval (Axios, May 28, 2026; PBS NewsHour, May 28, 2026).
Strait of Hormuz
Trump provided new detail on the Strait of Hormuz — the critical waterway through which roughly a fifth of the world’s oil transits. He said the Strait would open “immediately upon signing the memorandum of understanding,” subject to mine-clearing operations.
“We’ve already had our minesweepers there. We’re sweeping — and these are underwater minesweepers, a great, amazing technology. They’re underwater because usually when you’re looking for mines, that usually means you have some dangerous characters out there.”
He said the U.S. had swept “most” of the mines and expected rapid clearance after any agreement.
Removing Iran’s Nuclear Material
A reporter asked whether Iran had agreed to allow the U.S. to physically remove enriched uranium from the destroyed underground sites.
Trump: “Well, it depends on what day you’re talking about. They did agree and then sometimes they did — they agreed — well, that’s what I’m saying, that’s one of the things we talk about.”
He described the material as difficult to extract because the B-2 bombers had caused a mountain to partially collapse over the site: “That stuff is buried underneath a mountain that virtually collapsed. It’s very, very hard to get it.” He nonetheless said it remained a U.S. goal: “We will go in and sometime in the not too distant future… we will get it, and we will destroy it.”
He added that Space Force cameras are monitoring all three former nuclear sites continuously: “Every angle of those three sites are being watched at all times.”
Iran Deal vs. Obama Deal
Trump drew a sharp contrast between the emerging agreement and the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) negotiated by the Obama administration.
“This is the exact opposite. This is no path to a nuclear weapon. That was an absolute path to a nuclear weapon that you couldn’t have done anything about,” he said. He also revived the $1.7 billion cash payment controversy: “They gave billions and billions of dollars to Iran, including $1.7 billion put into a Boeing 757 with the seats taken out… with $1.7 billion in cash taken from the banks in DC, Maryland and Virginia and flown to Iran.”
Fact-Check — Obama’s “$1.7 Billion” to Iran: ⚠️ Misleading.
Trump’s description contains a factual kernel but omits essential context. The Obama administration did transfer $1.7 billion to Iran in 2016, delivered as foreign currency (not U.S. dollars, and not taken from U.S. banks as Trump claims). However, the money was not a gift or foreign aid. It represented the settlement of a decades-old legal dispute at The Hague: Iran had paid the U.S. $400 million before the 1979 Iranian Revolution for military equipment it never received, and the settlement included roughly $1.3 billion in accrued interest. The funds were delivered in cash because U.S. sanctions prevented normal wire transfers (Snopes, 2026; AP, 2016). The payment was Iran’s own money, returned under a legal judgment. Trump’s framing that this was cash “given” to Iran omits the legal and financial context entirely.
Israel, Hezbollah, and Lebanon
A reporter asked whether a U.S.-Iran deal was possible without an Israeli cessation of hostilities in Lebanon.
Trump described a historic and apparently recent diplomatic contact: “We actually spoke with Hezbollah for the first time ever. We didn’t know they spoke, and they agreed yesterday they’re not going to shoot, Israel is not going to shoot. We’re just going to see.”
He defended Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as “a great partner” and argued that Iran posed a regional threat beyond Israel: “They wouldn’t have stopped with Israel, they would have blown up the Middle East. And you saw that by the rockets. All those rockets that went to the five [neighboring] countries outside of Israel.”
Trump also noted the administration’s concern about the impact of the Iran conflict on financial markets, but expressed satisfaction: “I knew it would affect it [the stock market], but I was very happily surprised when I saw that today we had another stock market high.”
Section 7: Press Q&A — The Anti-Weaponization Fund
A reporter asked about reports that the administration’s $1.8 billion DOJ anti-weaponization fund had been dropped or paused.
Trump did not directly answer whether it was dead or on hold, saying: “I’d have to ask the lawyers, I don’t know.” But he used the question as a springboard for an extended and at times personal attack on the media — particularly CNN, which he accused of being “corrupt as hell” — and a defense of supporters who, he said, had suffered under politically motivated prosecutions.
“The fake news like CNN, like The New York Times and like others, have abused our people so badly,” he said. “These are people that are great people that were destroyed. Their families have been destroyed. Many suicides, they committed suicide. People that went there with love.”
He directed pointed comments at what appeared to be a CNN reporter standing in the room: “She’s a young, beautiful woman, never smiles. I never see a smile off her face — I see her standing there with hatred in her eyes like she has hatred because we have borders, because we have a strong military, because we cut our taxes.”
He referenced a court ruling blocking the fund: “A radical left judge ruled against it but these people, their lives have been destroyed.”
Section 8: Press Q&A — Communism, Cities, and Democratic Governance
A reporter noted that Trump had posted remarks about communism on Truth Social earlier that day and asked him to comment. Trump asked to have the post read aloud, and the reporter complied, reading: “Communists always do well with the voters or as they would say, the people in the early years. But in the end, the country, state or city goes to hell. Great violence perceived at levels never seen before, and the entity dissolves into poverty, squalor and crime. Remember breathtaking popularity first and then guaranteed death and destruction.”
Trump embraced the post and used it as a launching pad for extended criticism of New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, comparing their Democratic-led governments to communist-style governance.
On New York
“You don’t have any tax base, and you’re going to end up in hunger and squalor and death and destruction,” Trump said, criticizing Mayor Eric Adams for allowing major companies to leave. “I like him very much… but I don’t understand why he thinks it’s OK for all these companies that pay hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes a year to leave.”
On Chicago
Trump was more pointed about Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker, calling him “a slob” and “a dumb governor,” and calling Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson “a low-IQ person.” He argued Chicago had “a real chance to become great again” but that the governor’s unwillingness to accept federal help was blocking progress.
“People get murdered and he says, it’s fine. They lost five or six people last week and they said, it’s fine. I’m not going to lose five or six people,” Trump said.
On Memphis — “Crime Down 72 Percent”
Trump contrasted Chicago with Memphis, Tennessee, which he credited with dramatic crime reductions after accepting federal assistance, including National Guardsmen. He cited his conversation with the Tennessee governor: “He said, what you did for Memphis. Memphis, the crime is down about 72 percent and it’s going — he said it’s like a different city.”
Fact-Check — Memphis Crime Down “72 Percent”: ⚠️ Exaggerated.
Memphis did experience significant, well-documented crime reductions in 2025. However, the 72% figure does not match any available public statistic. According to Memphis Police Department year-end data, overall Part I crimes fell approximately 27–28% in 2025 compared to 2024, and 41% compared to 2023 (the worst year on record). Homicides fell 26% year-over-year, and carjackings dropped 48%. A specific metric — January 2026 Part I crimes vs. January 2025 — showed a roughly 48% decline. The steepest single-category reduction was in shooting incidents (down 38%). No independently verified figure supports a 72% overall crime reduction (Memphis Police Department, 2026; Memphis Mayor’s Office, 2026; Council on Criminal Justice, 2026). The administration did contribute federal resources, including the Memphis Safe Task Force, but Memphis’s crime reduction began before the full deployment of those resources and reflects a multi-year, multi-stakeholder effort.
On New Orleans
Trump also cited the safety of Mardi Gras 2026 as evidence of what federal law enforcement can accomplish: “They said they had the safest Mardi Gras they’ve ever had.” He said he sent National Guardsmen at the request of Governor Jeff Landry to address what he described as “a tremendous crime problem.”
On San Francisco
Trump described a more nuanced relationship with San Francisco’s mayor, saying the mayor is “a liberal guy, nice guy” who “wants to make San Francisco good and he’s trying very hard.” He said influential figures had asked him to give the mayor a chance, and he had agreed — for now. “I said, look, I can do it much faster than you. Please let me have it.”
Section 9: Press Q&A — Birthday and Legacy
A reporter offered Trump two questions: one on Iran (addressed above) and one about Trump’s upcoming birthday, asking what he wished for the country.
Trump kept it simple: “That’s all I want. I want to Make America Great Again. I think we’ve come a long way. I think we’re the most respected country in the world right now, by far the most respected.”
He described President Xi Jinping as “a friend of mine, he’s a good man — he’s for China. I’m for the USA. You know, it’s like one of those things.” He praised the recent U.S.-China relationship while acknowledging its complexity.
He then pivoted to a meditation on the Republican Party’s transformation under his leadership: “The Republican Party from before I came until now is a much different party, it’s a much bigger party. We have many, many more people and I think the thought, the mind, the thought is much different than it was 10 years ago.”
Notable Moments and Exchanges
The “Ceasefire” redefinition: One of the most revealing exchanges came when a reporter pressed Trump on whether the ceasefire with Iran was still holding despite active missile strikes. Trump’s response — that in that part of the world, “ceasefire is when you’re shooting in a more moderate manner” — drew laughter in the room but offered an unusually candid window into the administration’s understanding of the conflict’s fragility. Even Trump seemed surprised by his own frankness, adding: “Not bad. But it’s true.”
Peter Navarro’s entrance: Navarro’s opening framing of the customs EO as a near-guaranteed $15–30 billion revenue generator in year one was an unusually specific financial promise attached to an executive order, and it preceded even the formal legal description of what the EO would do.
James Sherk’s moment: Trump’s extended praise of Sherk — the civil service reform architect — and his joke about Sherk looking like he was cast from “central casting” was one of several moments in the session where Trump appeared more interested in the people around him than in the policy details. When Trump invited an unidentified person to “top him,” they replied simply: “I can’t.”
The CNN confrontation: Trump’s decision to directly address and describe a CNN reporter in the room — commenting on her appearance, her facial expressions, and her lack of smiles — was a notable deviation from typical press conference decorum and generated visible tension.
Citation
Factbase. “Remarks: Donald Trump Signs an Executive Order on Trade in the Oval Office — June 3, 2026.” Factbase, 3 June 2026, factbase.com. Transcript. Powered by FiscalNote / Roll Call.