The latest viral controversies of President Trump’s administration
By Evan Zhang ‘26
The viral “Trump Gaza” video contains images produced by artificial intelligence, like a looming gold statue of Trump. Courtesy of The New Arab.
Donald Trump has held office for just over three months. Yet the U.S. president has already racked up his fair share of controversies, stemming from both his political and social media presence.
In addition to establishing a new department titled the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) - spearheaded by tech mogul and his senior advisor Elon Musk - Trump has made efforts to abolish the Department of Education, as reported by NPR. Under DOGE, the administration is also attempting to condense the number of federal workers by a large margin, an action that has received widespread backlash from the public.
However, Trump’s executive itinerary is not the only aspect of his agenda that has been under fire. His behavior on social media and certain incidents have gained much traction on the Internet and in real life. Prime examples are the AI-generated “Trump Gaza” video, which Trump reposted in February, and his meeting around the same time with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, which derailed into a fierce argument at the White House.
Another recent scandal for the president is trending on media website X as “#SignalGate.” The controversy emerged in March when the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg, was added to a group chat between Trump’s elected officials on the topic of military operations in Yemen. Following the release of these messages to the public, the administration has been criticized for possibly leaking “classified information.”
It is difficult to determine the exact effect of these PR incidents on American opinions about Trump or the administration. Nevertheless, they have certainly made an impact. To thoroughly understand the extent, it is necessary to take a deeper dive into the myriad of viral moments and diplomatic mishaps that have plagued the presidency since its inception.
Trump Gaza
First and foremost is the now Internet-famous “Trump Gaza” video, depicting a reimagined, utopian version of the Gaza Strip, which President Trump reposted via Instagram on Feb. 25. As many know, the region has been under attack by Israeli forces since last year.
In light of Trump’s declaration to remove 2.1 million Palestinian people from the city and to rebuild the region into a “riviera,” a video emerged on the platform Truth Social, appearing to represent the president’s vision.
Generated with artificial intelligence, the video contained picturesque scenes of a bright blue coast, beaches covered in palm trees, and happy children running across the bank. The reality in Gaza is far from this idyllic fantasy. Other elements, such as gold statues of Trump and a casino named “Trump Gaza,” added to the tone-deafness of the video.
The video also featured a techno-esque song in the background, the lyrics of which reveled at the wonders of this AI paradise. As stated by CNN, notable lines included “Donald’s coming to set you free” and “Trump Gaza is finally here.”
Immediately, the video received backlash from governmental groups in Gaza. The local Government Media Office labeled it a ploy to “legitimize the ongoing ethnic cleansing” done by Israel’s military.
Despite this denouncement, NBC News says that the video’s original creators, Solo Avital and Ariel Vromen of the advertising company EyeMix Visuals, have emphasized their satirical intent. Speaking about the post, the two claimed they were looking to produce a video that would experiment with software and chose the topic of “Trump Gaza” spontaneously.
While Vromen asserts that the purpose was not propaganda-oriented, he believes that the fictional Gaza in the video appears a “gazillion times better than what it is right now.”
Additionally, the Israeli-born creators have questioned how the president was able to obtain the clip, seeing as it was only available on Instagram for a span of three hours before being taken down. They have speculated that actor Mel Gibson, to whom they sent it, may have reshared it with Trump; Gibson has not spoken out regarding the controversy.
I talked with junior Diana Manternach, who co-leads the Catlin Gabel School (CGS) Middle Eastern Affinity and Appreciation Club. After seeing the video on social media, Manternach said her first impression was that it was “insensitive” and “tone-deaf.”
“It was insensitive to the fact that [Gaza] is a war zone,” she remarked. “And that it was being painted as a utopia of sorts.” She believes that the video’s treatment of the conflict in the Middle East detracts “from the seriousness of the matter.”
When asked about President Trump’s repost on Instagram, she had this to say. “When you have children who don’t know where their next meal is going to come from…children who are going hungry, to have a president post something like this is hurtful.” Manternach also worries that the video’s popularity online may influence outsiders’ impressions of the conflict.
The Oval Office Argument
Furthermore, in late February, a meeting between President Trump, Vice President Vance, and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine ended in disaster. According to the BBC, although the session had been designated for discussion surrounding a new minerals deal between the U.S. and Ukraine, Zelenskyy left the Oval Office with an unsigned contract after a prolonged argument with Trump and Vance.
The subject matter? Military aid to Ukraine and Trump’s tentative alliance with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The dispute began when the conversation broached the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian War. When Vance initially praised Trump for “engaging in diplomacy” with Putin and criticized the Biden administration, Zelenskyy pushed back, noting the federal government’s general inaction to prevent the conflict.
“What kind of diplomacy, JD, you are speaking about?” demanded President Zelenskyy. Vance, calling Zelenskyy’s words “disrespectful,” retorted that he “should be thanking the president for trying to bring an end to this conflict.”
From that point forward, as seen in a transcript from AP News, the debate became much more vitriolic, with Trump joining in. Potentially feeling that the European leader’s behavior was ungrateful, the president and vice president asked Zelenskyy to “thank” the U.S. for its arms and weapons provisions to Ukraine in wartime.
Also, the American president warned that Ukraine was on the brink of a possible third world war and commanded that Zelenskyy agree to a ceasefire. “Your people are very brave,” he conceded. “But you’re either going to make a deal, or we’re out.”
The meeting concluded abruptly, as Trump cut it off, saying, “This is going to be great television.” This final line rang true, seeing as the event was broadcast worldwide for millions of viewers to see.
I interviewed Upper School teacher Peter Shulman on the topic. Shulman teaches “Honors Modern Middle East,” “US History: Politics, Economics & International Relations,” and “Honors The Rise of the Authoritarians” at CGS.
In his opinion, the argument was the product of pre-existing tensions between the Trump administration and Ukraine rather than the cause of new problems in the relationship. “I’m not sure that dispute changed anything,” he explained.
While Zelenskyy’s comments could be viewed as admirable, they will likely prove to have consequences in the long run, considering Ukraine’s current position as a nation at war.
As of Friday, March 28, new progress has been made regarding the unsigned agreement that may partially amend relations soured by the February conference. The implications of the renewed deal, which is outlined in this Newsweek article, include the two countries sharing a fund fueled by Ukrainian natural resources (including gas, oil, and other energy sources).
Practically speaking, ½ of Ukraine’s revenue from these materials would go towards the “joint investment fund.” Addressing the matter, Economy Minister of Ukraine Yulia Svyrydenko told the public, “We are formulating our position.” The success of the contract is unclear.
Shulman sees both sides of Zelenskyy’s predicament.
“I think he…obviously felt like they were framing things in a way that seemed so disconnected from reality,” he observed. That said, “I don’t know that he was wise to do what he did.” He later elaborated that Zelenskyy is “really in an impossible situation.”
#SignalGate
Lastly, the release of a private text chain on March 26 between various members of Trump’s cabinet has left the administration scrambling to recover its reputation. The trouble originated when the Editor-in-Chief of The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg, was invited to join a group chat on the messaging platform Signal in an alleged case of mistaken identity.
Two weeks later, Goldberg’s article in The Atlantic made headlines. In it, he detailed what he had witnessed as a member of the chat, including sensitive reporting about federal military operations in Yemen. Shortly thereafter, the newspaper published another article with proof to support his previous claims.
Social media users have termed the phenomenon “Signal Gate,” a pun based on the 1972 Watergate scandal of the Nixon presidency.
The chat itself was titled “Houthi PC small group” and contained prominent figures such as Vice President Vance, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard.
As the name suggests, a major topic concerning Trump’s officials was the rise of a Yemeni militant group known as the Houthis. Besides aligning with Palestine in the Israel-Hamas conflict, the organization has attacked American military vessels before, says Forbes. Moreover, federal intelligence believes that the Houthis are allied with the Iranian government.
The controversy arose on March 15, when the text chain began to broach what some Democrats have deemed “classified military plans.” Key messages can be found in this transcript by Reuters.
Around noon (EST), Defense Secretary Hegseth sent the message “We are a GO for mission launch” and “Target Terrorist is @ his Known Location,” followed by a description of two air strikes. Roughly two hours later, Waltz announced the collapse of a building containing one of the referenced “targets,” and congratulated operatives on an “amazing job.” After multiple positive messages from the others, Waltz texted a string of emojis that has since gained traction on social media.
The “fist-flag-fire” combination has become an Internet sensation, with some users even creating a game out of it. Courtesy of Threads.
As the discussion on Signal unfolded, though, a much bleaker turn of events transpired in the real world. That Saturday, the U.S. military’s airstrikes in Yemen left 53 dead. The next Monday saw another bombing in Sanaa, the nation’s capital, resulting in one dead and 13 injured.
In the wake of the chat’s subsequent leakage, members of the Trump administration have been under fire for their participation in the scandal. Maintaining his stance, Waltz tweeted that the administration had “NO WAR PLANS” in response to claims made by Democrats and others. Hegseth, along with White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, tore at The Atlantic’s usage of the term “war plans” as well, NBC News reports.
Although Trump stated earlier that he didn’t “know anything about” the Signal Gate Scandal, he would later amend this statement, clarifying instead that he “wasn’t involved with it.”
The administration’s stance has shifted, too, with Leavitt calling the fiasco “a mistake.” Still, the secretary maintained that the conversation included “sensitive” but “not classified” information.
Speaking on the subject, Shulman pointed out that for “most people not in the administration…the idea that this would not be classified information is ridiculous.” Addressing Trump officials’ phrasing, he wondered whether “these exact same people wouldn’t be calling it a ‘terrible leak of classified information’ if it wasn’t them doing it.”
Looking past the scandal’s reception in the political world, the situation has spawned Internet memes as well. For instance, user “@PeterTwinklage” on X edited a popular meme template to read “Bomb Yemen tonite 👀,” apparently poking fun at the group chat. Another X user, “@TankieSlappa,” posted a meme depicting Elon Musk as upset that Waltz, Hegseth, and Vance were in a chat without him.
Two memes posted on X referencing the controversial administrative text chain about Yemen. Courtesy of @PeterTwinklage and @TankieSlappa on X.com
Since the leak, Waltz has assumed responsibility for the Atlantic journalist’s presence in the chat, explaining that one of his staffers confused Goldberg for someone else. In its wake, Democrat Jack Reed requested that the incident be reviewed by the U.S. Department of Defense.
Shulman similarly called attention to the legal aspect. Acknowledging the fact that the air strikes were deliberated on Signal, he stated, “It’s not legal to do government business where your communications are disappearing. You have to keep records.”
The degree to which these three incidents will affect the Trump administration remains to be seen. In Shulman’s words, “Generally, no matter what an administration is doing, there’s some news organization that’s like ‘This is a scandal of the highest order.’” Perhaps the fervor surrounding the “Trump Gaza” video, Oval Office dispute, and Signal Gate debacle will die down in the long run.
One must also contemplate the ways the Internet sensationalized and possibly exacerbated these publicity controversies. As Manternach commented, the world is “highly dependent on social media for information.” Would these scandals have received the outcry they did without the involvement of the digital community?
At the end of the day, the future of President Trump’s term is unknown. Even so, let the events of the past two months serve as a pertinent lesson on the power of the press, the Internet, and social media.