Jon Meacham is one of America’s leading thinkers on how the country’s political history can inform the present. He recently visited Penn State to present a lecture on his 2018 book The Soul of America and joined us for a wide-ranging conversation on the war in Ukraine (and whether Zelensky really is like Churchill), American polarization polarization, the changing media landscape, and more.
Check out his recent interview on "Democracy Works."
Listen now
President Donald Trump attends a Cabinet meeting at the White House on Dec. 2, 2025, in Washington, D.C.
Over years and years of covering politics, the last decade of which has been spent covering Donald Trump specifically, I’ve learned you can never really count him out.
It’s been a painful, exhausting, and deeply disappointing lesson, but an important one nonetheless. He keeps on keeping on. The things I find disturbing, revolting, and utterly disqualifying are inexplicably the same exact things that a not small number of Americans find appealing. Racism, incompetence, corruption, to name a few.
The things that would end any other politician’s career for good seem to have the opposite effect on his — instead of diminishing his power they only seem to embolden him. An impeachment, an insurrection, a criminal conviction, to name a few.
It’s been said many times, but the rules — of law, of political gravity, of general decency — just don’t seem to apply to him, and he’s taken extreme advantage of this phenomenon. And moreover, he seems to delight in his invincibility, flaunting the double standards and hypocrisy of one set of rules for him and another for everyone else, almost taunting his opponents to try getting away with what only he can.
So I almost never say what I’m about to say, because I’ve lived this exhausting reality for so long. But it feels like it’s finally true: this might just be the beginning of the end for Trump.
To be clear, this isn’t mere wishful thinking — though, for the good of the country I very much want to be rid of Trump and Trumpism once and for all.
It’s based on the inarguable reality of what we’re all witnessing — the walls are closing in on him.
Let’s take the polls to start.
A brutal new poll from Gallup has Trump’s approval in the gutter — he’s at -24%, down from -1% in January. Only Richard Nixon had a worse approval at this point in his second term, and he never recovered. Many other polls show similar, or even worse news for Trump’s standing among the electorate, where support from independents, Gen Z, and Hispanics has eroded significantly since his reelection. He’s even losing support among his base.
Then, there’s his economy. The signature pitch he made to voters was that he’d end inflation and make housing, energy, and consumer goods more affordable. Thanks to tariffs, DOGE cuts, profligate spending, and incompetence, Trump’s exploded the national debt and deficit, inflation has risen since January, unemployment is also up, consumers are seeing higher, not lower, prices at the grocery store, small businesses are seeing increased costs of operating, and more Americans believe Trump has been worse for the economy, not better.
Then there’s his personnel. Trump has been fending off serious issues of incompetence inside his administration since Day 1. His secretary of defense is being accused of war crimes. His head of the FBI is rumored to be on the chopping block. His attorney general is routinely mocked for her ineffectuality. Scientists from nearly every field of study have called for his head of health and human services to be replaced. His homeland security secretary may be prosecuted for contempt.
Then there’s his party. One-time staunch allies like Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Nancy Mace are ignoring his threats and breaking with him on issues of America First, Jeffrey Epstein, and the shutdown. At least five Republicans have announced they are retiring or will not seek reelection. GOP senators ignored Trump’s urging to end the filibuster, and state lawmakers have rejected his redistricting efforts.
Finally, there are his media surrogates. Top MAGA influencers, who mainly reach Trump voters on Youtube and other platforms, are intentionally alienating the normies in the center-right by elevating neo-Nazis, excusing pedophilia, and engaging in some truly bizarre conspiracy theories.
But the biggest red flag that not all is well in Trump world? Trump himself. Monday night, Trump flooded Truth Social with more than 160 posts in five hours — an unhinged mix of high and low, from posting his cameo in “Home Alone 2” to demanding disgraced Colorado election official Tina Peters be released from prison.
It was a disturbing look at someone who’s clearly lost control — of his presidency, of his party, of his messaging. Flooding the zone with utter nonsense to distract us all from his obvious failures is seemingly all he has left.
Again, it’s never wise to declare Trump dead, politically. Somehow he always manages to slither back into a place of power and protection. But this time, with midterms around the corner, it feels different. This time, it feels like it might be the end.
S.E. Cupp is the host of "S.E. Cupp Unfiltered" on CNN.
In my work as a homeowner advocate and civic voice, I’ve come to believe that honesty and integrity aren’t just personal virtues—they’re the foundation of every meaningful relationship, every credible institution, and every lasting peace. When those values are compromised, trust erodes—and with it, so does the social fabric that holds communities and nations together.
This isn’t just a local lesson. It’s a global one.
In 1994, Ukraine surrendered the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal. It did so voluntarily, trusting that the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia would honor their word. The Budapest Memorandum offered security assurances in return: a promise to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Ukraine kept its word. The world did not.
When Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 and launched a full-scale invasion in 2022, those assurances proved tragically insufficient. The signatories expressed concern, imposed sanctions, and offered aid—but none intervened militarily to uphold the sovereignty they had pledged to protect. The message was clear: political commitments and absent enforcement are fragile shields.
Now, as Ukraine faces the prospect of new negotiations, the question arises: Why would it trust another set of guarantees—especially from the same actors who failed to uphold the last?
This is not a call for cynicism. It is a call for clarity.
If the United States aspires to lead by example, it must reckon with the legacy of broken promises. It must offer more than rhetoric. It must craft agreements that are enforceable, transparent, and rooted in accountability. That’s not just good policy—it’s a moral imperative.
Because when nations fail to honor their word, they don’t just lose credibility; They weaken the very norms that underpin global cooperation. They teach smaller nations that survival depends not on diplomacy but on deterrence. And they risk a future where trust is replaced by fear.
The Fulcrum exists to elevate voices committed to strengthening democracy. That work begins with restoring faith in our institutions, our commitments, and our word. Honesty and integrity are not luxuries. They are the bedrock of a functioning democracy and a peaceful world.
The world is watching. Ukraine is watching. And history will remember not just what we said—but what we did.
Bruce Lowe is a homeowner advocate and community leader in Lubbock, Texas. He writes about civic integrity, public health, and principled reform. His book, "Honesty and Integrity: The Pillars of a Meaningful Life", explores how ethical leadership can strengthen families, uplift communities, and create a better life for all.
U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth speaks during a cabinet meeting hosted by President Donald Trump in the Cabinet Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, Dec. 2, 2025.
Since September of this year, the United States military has been blowing up boats allegedly trafficking drugs in the Caribbean.
Whether these attacks are legal is hotly debated. Congress hasn’t declared war or even authorized the use of force against “narco-terrorists” or against Venezuela, the apparent real target of a massive U.S. military build-up off its coast.
The Trump administration has simply unilaterally designated various — alleged — drug traffickers as “terrorists” or members of “terrorist organizations,” and then waged war upon them. The administration’s internal legal finding supporting all of this hasn’t been publicly released. But whatever their case in private is, it was sufficiently weak that the British government announced in early November it would no longer share intelligence with the U.S. relevant to the Caribbean operation over concerns about its lawfulness.
On Friday, the Washington Post dropped a bombshell report about the first of these operations back in September. During the strike, the Navy not only took out a suspected drug-trafficking boat — as had been reported previously — but when survivors were spotted clinging to the wreckage, the special operations commander overseeing the operation ordered a second strike on the survivors, in order to comply with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s order to kill everyone involved.
“Hegseth gave a spoken directive, according to two people with direct knowledge of the operation,” the Post reported. “ ‘The order was to kill everybody,’ one of them said.”
Whatever you think about the broader Caribbean operation, it is a simple fact that shooting survivors at sea is war crime, under American and international law. Of course, as some suggest, since this operation is not a legal war, maybe it’s not a war crime, just a crime-crime.
Later Friday, in a lengthy social media post, Hegseth attacked the Washington Post’s report as an instance of the “fake news … delivering more fabricated, inflammatory, and derogatory reporting.”
What Hegseth didn’t do was directly deny the report. Instead, he insisted that “we’ve said from the beginning, and in every statement, these highly effective strikes are specifically specifically intended to be ‘lethal, kinetic strikes.’ ”
Declaring your intent was to kill everybody on the first try isn’t a legal excuse to finish off unarmed survivors.
Hegseth offered follow-up posts that were boastful or childish, but did not deny the charge.
With even Republican members of Congress expressing grave concerns, the official story changed from “fake news” to an actual denial. Trump said that Hegseth told the president that he did not give any such illegal order, “and I believe him, 100%,” adding that he “wouldn’t have wanted that. Not a second strike.”
So it now appears the White House has confirmed there was a second strike on the survivors, and conceded that it would at least be against the president’s policy. Whether the White House will concede the strike was unlawful remains to be seen. Indeed, exactly what happened remains murky. It surely seems like someone gave an order for a second strike. And if it wasn’t Hegseth, whoever that person was could be looking at a court-martial — or given who the commander-in-chief is, a pardon.
But I don’t want to get ahead of the news.
Instead, I’ll make a few points.
First, a minor gripe: This administration and its defenders need to be more selective in their use of the term “fake news.” I have no problem calling a false story “fake news.” But if you know that a story isn’t false, calling it “fake news” just sets you up to look like even more of a liar or hypocrite down the road when you end up admitting the truth and defending actions you once pretended were slanderous.
More importantly, the whole Caribbean strategy is constitutionally and legally dubious. As a matter of foreign policy, it looks more and more like a pretext for some kind of regime change gambit in Venezuela. If the administration has evidence that justifies its actions, they should share it with Congress and ask for permission to wage war.
Even more important: illegal orders cannot be justified. When a half-dozen Democratic members of Congress released a video saying that the military shouldn’t follow “illegal orders,” the president and many of his defenders became hysterical. Trump lamented that America has become so “soft” that such “seditious behavior” isn’t punished by death anymore.
More sober critics of the Democrats complained that the video sowed confusion in the ranks and hurt morale. I’m actually sympathetic to that argument.
But you know what else sows confusion and hurts morale? Issuing illegal orders – or even appearing to do so.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.
If you want to understand what makes the United States exceptional on an emotional level, take an in-person or virtual trip to both Mt. Vernon, Virginia, and Paris, France. At Mt. Vernon, you can tour the preserved and reconstructed plantation of George Washington, viewing what the tour claims is the first compost bin in the nation and reading about the particular way he organized his gardens.
The most important part, though, is his grave. The first President of the most powerful nation on Earth rests in a modest brick mausoleum about ten feet high, built into a hillside. The plain white room containing the sarcophagi of Washington and his wife is barely larger than the two coffins themselves.
The French have a very different tomb dedicated to the founder of their modern nation. Emperor Napoleon rests in a stone sarcophagus on a raised dais in a huge domed building. To American eyes, the building looks like one of our state capitals, complete with columns, domes, Greco-Roman reliefs, and multiple entrances. The room containing the sarcophagus is opulent, with detailed carved statues of Roman figures, golden trim, ornate hanging lamps, large windows, and a large second-story balcony. It is less a grave than a temple, deifying the person of the Emperor.
This striking difference tells you much of what you need to know about why the United States has done so well for so long. The father of our nation and his contemporaries did not believe in deifying their leader. Washington was keenly aware of setting a humble precedent by everything he did, from limiting himself to two terms to adopting the title “Mr. President.” His legacy to all of us was not in his personality, but in the processes and structures he built that lived on after he did. By his design, we pay respect to our founder by operating the wondrous democratic machinery he first showed us how to operate.
My opinion of Washington as the best American President is not unanimous. Many studies that rank the Presidents place Abraham Lincoln first, while Washington tends to appear somewhere in the top five. This always struck me as unfair. Lincoln was remarkable, to be sure, and ending the scourge of slavery guarantees his place forever as one of the best Presidents. Yet, he arrived on the scene with a particular existential problem to solve - a civil war that was clearly about to erupt over the slavery question. His capacity for greatness was amplified by exterior forces presenting him with a clear crisis.
Washington, more than any other President, arrived with a blank slate. His existential crisis had come years before, when he survived a war with Great Britain. By the time he came to office, the most serious existential dangers to the country came in the form of future risks. Washington’s challenge in office was not so much how to defeat an enemy in front of him, but how to build a system that could handle enemies in the future. It is harder to create than to destroy, and harder still to build a strong structure for a future you cannot fully predict.
Process theory suggests that the aim of a law should not be to obtain a particular substantive result, but to adopt and defend processes that tend to lead to good results. It isn’t hard to see the utility of this approach. People are going to disagree about what is good and what is bad and to what degree. Some such disagreements may be distant from the passions of most citizens, like what kind of crops to encourage farmers to grow or who to hire for a government construction contract. Others may be very close to the heart, such as whether to outlaw abortion or how immigration should work. In each case, because there are passions and well-reasoned arguments pulling in different directions, there has to be some process to decide what to do. A core function of government is helping mediate that outcome.
Washington wasn’t a process theorist exactly. In fact, he did not write much at all about the philosophy behind his governance. But his instincts were very process-based. He believed that a regular process was what distinguished the republic from the extremes of monarchy or mob rule. He strove to mediate carefully and fairly between the political divisions of the day among his own cabinet members and in his interactions with Congress. Even his more extreme actions, like putting down the Whiskey Rebellion (a major use of federal military force against citizens), came from a sense of duty to uphold duly enacted law rather than any sense of solving a problem by any means necessary. Washington left us with an example and a legacy of respect for the process and for the rule of law.
There will always be those who feel passionately in the correctness of their substantive position and who believe anyone who feels differently is evil. After all, if you believe you have the best interests of the country in mind and you’ve determined the right solution to a problem, doesn’t that mean anyone who disagrees with you must be treasonously acting against the country’s interests? This is a very natural trap to fall into, and some of the less successful Presidents did so. President Adams passed heavy-handed censorship laws based on this logic, called the Alien and Sedition Acts, which are now widely recognized as ineffective.
Thinking of anyone who has a substantively different opinion as evil is a mistake. We are all limited as human beings, impacted by our life experiences, knowledge, and skills. Indeed, the major benefit of the rule of law is as a way to mediate differing ideas, leading to better results than a single person’s judgment alone. A fair process must be respected and accepted to make this happen. To declare that the process should not stand in the way of one’s own passionately held belief is Napoleonic hubris.
Disregarding the rule of law to force through a result is also extremely dangerous. People are going to have disagreements no matter what processes are in place. If there is no agreed upon process for resolving those disagreements, the parties will decide the issue some other way. The most ancient method is physical violence. Without a respected legal process, if two neighbors disagree over how much water each is extracting from the stream, murderous action could end that disagreement. In addition to being morally abhorrent, that process does nothing to make sure the decision was made correctly.
Adherence to the established rule of law as a way of solving problems leads to better outcomes. Similarly, the idea of a single strong leader who cuts through the “red tape” of process to fix a problem is similarly flawed. A modern state is a massive, complex system. No single person understands its operation alone. Swift, decisive action simply results in faster bad decisions.
We best honor the legacy of George Washington and others responsible for the freedoms we enjoy by respecting the process that was their greatest legacy. None of us will always agree with the results of the process. But the last two hundred years of the United States becoming the leader of the world should give us powerful evidence that the rule of law is effective. Washington did not need a gaudy display of opulence to declare his successes, as the greatness of his hard work has thundered for hundreds of years.
Colin E. Moriarty is a partner at Moriarty Underhill LLC and a volunteer with Lawyers Defending American Democracy.
