The article you link to says it was last week. This was the selective publication of White House visitor logs online. Those logs still need to be submitted to the national archive.

You can freely object to such changes. But the second people start spinning it into something much worse than what it is. I feel like they are playing politics and don't really care.

What exactly was the spin? The administration is literally killing the site open.gov, I don't see any bias with stating it exactly as it is:

"White House officials said the Administration is ending the contract for Open.gov, the Obama-era site that hosted the visitor records along with staff financial disclosures, salaries, and appointments."

As to your extra claim that visitor logs will be submitted to the national archive, do you have some reference to back that up? Regardless there are a number of ways that could make access more difficult. For example, you have to physically go to the national archive to look the records up, national archive of the logs aren't made available until much later after the visits occurred, etc. I'm really not familiar enough with it to know the implications, but I highly doubt multiple organizations would be suing over this if it wasn't an important difference:

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/328058-dhs-sued-f...

Jeez, nobody tell him about data.gov ...

Is this a joke or not, I can't tell because none of the pages on data.gov load for me...

Http/1.1 Service Unavailable

www.data.gov works for me

Quite a few links, including the "Contact" page for every topic, are just showing an error message "Data.gov encountered an unexpected error. We apologize for this inconvenience and assure you that work is underway to correct this problem. Please check back in 15 minutes and thank you for using Data.gov." (which appears to be the same text they show as their generic 404 message.) For example https://www.data.gov/contact and https://www.data.gov/climate/faq

huh, never mind. They're back. I guess for once that "check back in 15 mins" turned out to be true...?

Ditto; are there specific pages people are trying and not working?

And he wonders why people are increasingly skeptical of his administration.

I don't think he wonders about anything at all. He knows (and is wrong).

Because people read the ending of "the selective publication of White House visitor logs online" as something menacing?

Especially if it was "selective" to begin with...

Increasingly? Weren't most of his supporters somewhat skeptical from the start?

His approval rating was highest his first week as president:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

That's because he fired missiles in Syria and detonated the MOAB in Afghanistan. Whenever a president commits an act of war against a publicly perceived threat, their ratings get a temporary boost.

Neither of these things were done the first week of his presidency.. He started in January, it's now April, which is when these events happened...