Today's #ListenFirst Friday video focuses on the importance of overcoming political divides and coming together to combat climate change.
Video: #ListenFirst Friday Ellis Watamanuk
#ListenFirst Friday Ellis Watamanuk
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Join a growing community committed to civic renewal.
Subscribe to The Fulcrum and be part of the conversation.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a signing ceremony for the “Secure America Act” in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., on June 10, 2026.
(Ken Cedeno/AFP via Getty Images/TCA)
The Iranian regime does not fear Trump
Jun 12, 2026
Back in 2012, President Barack Obama issued a statement at a press conference that would change his presidency and his legacy forever.
It was a year into what would become Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad’s brutal and protracted war on his own people, a war that would cost hundreds of thousands of lives, empower Iran and Russia, and destabilize much of the region.
Obama said then of U.S. intervention, “We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to the other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.”
But, of course, it didn’t.
In August 2013, Assad ordered a devastating sarin gas attack in Ghouta which killed at least 1,400 people, many of them children. It was a defiant and indefensible move that clearly crossed our red line.
Obama at first announced there would be a targeted military strike in response, but ultimately decided to pivot to a diplomatic deal, reaching a much-derided agreement with Russia to dismantle Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile.
Syria hailed the move as a “historic American retreat,” and to this day, foreign policy experts argue that Obama’s capitulation weakened America’s credibility abroad. Even Obama has expressed his regrets over Syria, and what New York Times columnist Nick Kristof called “his worst mistake.”
When a president speaks, the world listens…and learns. And our current president is realizing that the hard way.
President Trump’s ill-conceived war in Iran has dragged on for more than 100 days now, and shows no signs of concluding. That’s not merely because Trump seems totally out-maneuvered by a regime that’s been planning a war of contrition with the U.S. for nearly 20 years, but because he is no longer believed.
For nearly a decade, Trump has been threatening Iran with an often bellicose and cartoonish mix of social media threats, warnings and ultimatums. Back in his first term, he threatened to target 52 Iranian cultural sites (and then backed down); he threatened Iranian “obliteration” via Twitter (and then backed down); and he posted in all caps, “CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE” (and then backed down).
And again in his second term, since starting the war, Trump’s issued more threats: “A civilization will die, never to be brought back again,” and “hell will reign down on [Iran].” He’s threatened the “complete demolition” of Iran’s power plants, oil wells, and bridges, and to bomb the country “back to the Stone Age.”
Trump’s threatened to stop and start the war countless times, and this week, Fox’s Trey Yingst shared that he’s once again threatening to “bomb the sh*t” out of Iran if they fail to reach a peace deal, a deal Trump has been promising since the start of the war three months ago was “close.” Thursday morning, Trump threatened to bomb Iran’s defense systems and “assume total control of its oil and gas markets.”
To be clear, Trump’s threats of genocide are totally inappropriate and may even enter war crimes territory, but his lack of follow through has also emboldened Iran. They’ve watched Trump issue threat after threat for years, while fumbling through both diplomatic and military channels to reach some kind of deal that would help the U.S. save face. Meanwhile, we are no closer to a nuke-free Iran, a liberated Iranian people, or regime change than we were before the war started.
On the global stage, not only isn’t he feared, he’s not even believed anymore. What this means for Iran is anyone’s guess. But if past is prologue, “Trump Always Chickens Out” — TACO — could end up defining his legacy more than anything else.
S.E. Cupp is the host of "S.E. Cupp Unfiltered" on CNN.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
President Donald Trump speaks to the press in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., on June 3, 2026.
(Mandel NGAN/AFP via Getty Images/TCA)
Welcome to Trump’s lame duck presidency
Jun 05, 2026
It's been a while since we saw a lame duck presidency — long enough in politics to maybe forget what one looks like.
In October 2014, President Barack Obama hit his lowest approval rating yet at 40%. The midterm elections were an absolute bloodbath for Democrats — Republicans expanded their majority in the House by 13 seats and took control of the Senate with a gain of nine seats.
The predictions for the second half of Obama’s second term were fatalistic. As early as 2013, analysts were calling his presidency DOA, having seemingly spent all of his political capital on getting the Affordable Care Act passed and implemented, which didn’t go smoothly. He suffered early second-term losses on the Bush-era tax cuts, gun control efforts, and immigration reform.
There was just nothing left in the tank. Or so it seemed.
But Obama defied those predictions. In 2015, he got a huge win when the Supreme Court — in a surprise from conservative Chief Justice John Roberts — ruled in favor of keeping Obamacare intact, preserving his signature legislation.
Then, the ambitious Trans Pacific Partnership deal, the world’s biggest ever trade agreement accounting for two-fifths of trade, got fast-tracked by a highly divided Congress.
He got another win in Cuba, where he secured an agreement to resume diplomatic relations after 54 years of hostilities. And he signed an Iran nuclear deal designed to prevent Iran from developing nukes in exchange for sanction relief.
Whatever you think of Obamacare, the TPP, and the Cuba and Iran deals, it’s hard to argue Obama’s final months in office were very “lame.” In as little as a year, he’d redefined the meaning of the term.
We know how much Obama tends to get in Donald Trump’s head. As the legend goes, after all, it was Obama’s mockery of Trump at the 2011 White House Correspondents’ Dinner that provoked him to run for president. Ever since, he’s been fixated on the ex chief, even blasting his Chicago presidential library with petty jabs in recent months.
Well, Trump only wishes he were having the final few years that Obama did. Instead, it seems, Trump’s lame-duck presidency has arrived early.
Trump’s approval has plummeted since his inauguration, dropping from 52% to 38%, while his disapproval has shot up 15 points.
Thanks in large part to his dumb tariffs and dumb war in Iran, the midterms are looking so bad for Republicans, the party’s resorted to mid-census redistricting schemes that may or may not pay off. Democrats could not only take back the House but win the Senate, with candidates in red states like Texas, Iowa and Ohio in real contention.
Then there are his recent losses. A lot of them.
The $1.8 billion slush fund to pay out MAGA loyalists, including Jan. 6 insurrectionists, was met with such disdain from his own party, he had to dump it.
Four Republicans in the House just voted with Democrats to pass a war powers resolution directing Trump to withdraw military forces from Iran.
Republicans in both chambers have come out to condemn Trump’s utterly absurd pick for director of national intelligence, Bill Pulte.
The fate of his billion-dollar ballroom remains up in the air, as do the “Trump battleships” he’s proposed. A judge ruled he cannot put his name on the Kennedy Center, and his Freedom 250 concert series collapsed as musical acts dropped out one by one, leaving Vanilla Ice to headline, if it happens at all.
These are some humiliating losses. And the crazy part is, had Trump pursued “normal” policy wins for Americans instead of the insane, vulgar, and self-interested nonsense he has, he’d surely be in a different position.
But he didn’t. Welcome to your lame duck, era, Mr. President.
S.E. Cupp is the host of "S.E. Cupp Unfiltered" on CNN.
Keep ReadingShow less
Construction continues on a venue for the upcoming UFC match on the South Lawn of the White House on June 1, 2026 in Washington, DC.
Andrew Harnik / Getty Images
Trump’s UFC Birthday Bash Dwarfs Flag Day’s Meaning and History
Jun 04, 2026
In the days between Memorial Day—when we as a nation mourn and honor U.S. Military Personnel who died while serving in the Armed Forces—and July 4—when this year we will celebrate 250 years of our Democracy—there will fall, on June 14, a holiday known as Flag Day.
Since 1777, when the Second Continental Congress designated June 14 to commemorate the adoption of the U.S. flag, Flag Day has become a nationally celebrated holiday. But this year it has been overshadowed by a “tremendous” occasion taking place on the same day.
This June 14 is President Trump’s 80th birthday.
Could there possibly be a more fitting tribute to our gold-gilded President than a colossal live UFC (Ultimate Fighting Championship) on the South Lawn of the White House?
Trump’s massive new ballroom, larger than the rest of the White House complex, will unfortunately encroach a little on the South Lawn’s driveway. Thankfully, the glamorous aesthetics for the ballroom are intact, classic Roman with highly ornate gilded gold finishes. Perfect.
An iconic “claw” octagon cage is now being constructed on the South Lawn, with 5,000 seats around it. For $1.5 million, you can snag a prestigious VIP “package” for the event to avoid being amongst the 85,000 plebeians watching from giant screens at nearby Ellipse Park.
Peaking in the first century BC to the second century AD, gladiatorial games offered their sponsors extravagantly expensive and extremely effective opportunities for self-promotion. As befitting the “ruler” of any great empire, modern-day “gladiators” will “do battle” for the President’s birthday bash.
The main event for these modern gladiators will pit American Justin Gaethje against Spanish Georgian Ilia Topuria. Gladiators in the earliest Roman games were named after the Roman leaders’ enemies. Shall we then dub them “Biden” and “Obama”?
The event’s weigh-in will take place at the Lincoln Memorial. If Abraham Lincoln could “weigh in” on the spectacle, he might comment on the shredding of the Republican Party, as well as express concern about the future of the Republic itself.
In our modern age, where do we find the true warriors? No doubt they would be members of the Armed Forces, likely of the elite Navy SEAL team.
The Navy SEALs constitute less than 1% of the entire U. S. Navy. Only 20-25 percent who qualify to begin make it through the 62-week intensive training and the next 18 months of pre-deployment. There are eight active-duty teams and two reserve teams. The odd-numbered teams are stationed in Coronado, California, the even-numbered in Little Creek, Virginia.
The SEAL Ethos begins: “In times of war or uncertainty, there is a special breed of warrior ready to answer the Nation’s call … to serve the American people and protect their way of life.” The oath continues expressing a SEAL’s personal commitment: “…I do not seek recognition for my actions…but place the welfare and security of others before my own.”
So, where will these real heroes be on June 14th? They will be doing their jobs. They have already demonstrated their resolve; they are willing to join those who made the “ultimate sacrifice” for the greater good of our country.
And where will the birthday boy, also known as their Commander in Chief, be? Committed, as always, to glittering showmanship and garnering public accolades, whooping it up at his birthday bash.
Or possibly, he will be busy declaring wars or, as he calls the Iranian war, “excursions.” Or threatening whole civilizations with mass destruction and issuing wildly contradictory statements. “We won the war.” (March 3) "We must attack." (March 9) "We won the war." (March 13) "We will bomb the hell out of them.” (April 7)
President Trump did not serve in the Armed Forces when he was eligible, but received a total of five military deferments, his fifth a medical deferment for a bone spur. The podiatrist who provided the diagnosis later disclosed he did so as a favor to Trump’s father, who was the doctor’s commercial landlord. (New York Times, Dec., 2018)
Hail to the Chief.
Despite an already enormous debt, Julius Caesar, who also prided himself on his showmanship and unprecedented use of public funds, outfitted 320 pairs of gladiators with silver armor in a show of strength and scale in the closing years of the Roman Republic.
Let us not follow his example. We cannot allow these to be the closing years of our own Republic.
As the President’s birthday party also serves as the “unofficial launch” of the summer-long semiquincentennial celebrations, we have some time to reflect on our country’s upcoming birthday and the direction it will take.
So, from Coronado, California, to Little Creek, Virginia, from “Sea to Shining Sea,” let us remember the true heroes who have come before us and those who are with us now.
Let us commit to preserving “…this worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried.” (Churchill)
And let us fly our American flags high and celebrate our democracy, and all it has survived, and all it will continue to.
Amy Lockard is an Iowa resident who regularly contributes to regional newspapers and periodicals. She is working on the second of a four-book fictional series based on Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice."
Keep ReadingShow less
One year after leaving the U.S. Navy, a former Lieutenant Commander examines growing threats to military independence, democratic institutions, veterans' rights, and constitutional accountability under the Trump administration.
Tetra Images/Getty Images
The Military Needs You To Help Defend It
Jun 02, 2026
Exactly one year ago today, I resigned my commission as a Lieutenant Commander in the United States Navy. For fourteen years, I had voluntarily accepted the standard bargain of military service that included signing away a substantial portion of my First Amendment rights. I reclaimed them just in time.
Upon entering civilian life with a decade of active-duty observations, I started writing more. Over the past twelve months, I contributed over twenty op-eds to The Fulcrum (in addition to being published by VoteVets, Slate, and The New York Times). The vast majority of my pieces have touched on national security or the military-connected community. Turns out, I have a lot to say. Also, there’s been no shortage of material.
We are currently observing a hostile takeover of the American armed forces. The Trump regime is deliberately engineering the military apparatus to enforce unquestioning obedience to the executive branch, attempting to transform the ranks into what I call a “brute squad of religiously motivated loyalists.” Concurrently, there is reason to believe Trump’s war in Iran is being extended simply to manipulate the markets and create a windfall of self-enrichment for the President and his friends, fundamentally compromising the integrity of military leadership. To accomplish these goals, the administration is actively working to suppress internal dissent and external oversight.
The scope of this effort is broad and alarming. President Trump has bypassed traditional Constitutional checks by committing service members to an ill-defined and illegal war of indefinite length with Iran, all while systematically weakening veteran services. Meanwhile, internal changes at the Pentagon include: the purging of women and people of color from leadership ranks, the restriction of independent press access, the gutting of civilian harm mitigation programs, the manipulation of casualty data, and the indoctrination of white Christian nationalist ideologies.
Perhaps most ominous is Defense Secretary Hegseth’s attacks on the Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps, or the military’s cadre of lawyers. He just announced a sweeping review of the military justice and legal system, intending to ensure “maximum lethality” rather than “tepid legality.” Given that legality is being framed as an obstacle, this is a highly precarious situation for the force, to say the least. Not every military officer gets a law degree in her free time. Putting the onus on the average service member in a fast-moving battlespace to decipher complex constitutional boundaries or evaluate lawfulness is an immense burden.
Evidently, Trump wants to disempower service members from questioning what is unlawful. In the past year, he tried to convince a Grand Jury to indict several veteran lawmakers after they posted a 90-second video reminding servicemembers of their legal obligation to refuse such orders. Trump called the video “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL,” branded the lawmakers “traitors,” demanded they be “ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL,” and called their actions “punishable by DEATH!” When the President is threatening sitting Congressmen executions for simply restating the law, what 18-year-old kid is prepared to actually challenge an order? A leader anticipating illegal activity may hope that the question is rhetorical. Fear and intimidation help secure compliance.
Even I, as a relatively anonymous veteran, have been advised countless times this past year, in response to my advocacy, to “be safe.” There is a pervasive, palpable anxiety that public criticism of the current administration–especially of its military policy–carries real personal danger. I recognize both the privilege and the danger that come with using my voice as a veteran to advocate for those still serving. And though I do not claim to represent the views of all servicemembers, nor will the entirety of the force agree with my analyses, my inbox has been filled with messages over the past year from active-duty personnel offering quiet thank yous.
Trump and Hegseth do not represent the views of all service members either. There are plenty of folks serving who wish they could quit, which might be why the number of military personnel inquiring about conscientious objection has risen by 1,000% since the start of the Iran war. Many joined for the promise of stability and upward mobility, and now they are stuck in an organization run by a draft dodger who “finds the notion of military service difficult to understand, and the idea of volunteering to serve especially incomprehensible” and keeps putting off making a deal with Iran, claiming he could fight forever, flippantly suggesting there will likely be more deaths while referring to fallen Americans as ‘losers’ and ‘suckers’. I will keep fighting for them, and for this republic.
Veteran voices are obviously critical to these conversations, but Trump and Hegseth are actively seeking to stifle them. As dozens of retired high-ranking military leaders warned in an amicus brief submitted by the Vet Voice Foundation, it could easily become “unclear what constitutional protection would remain for veterans wishing to express public disagreement with a present Administration…” We need backup. Unfortunately, a profound civilian-military divide has allowed the public to often overlook the structural vulnerabilities of the force. I empathize with those who have kept the military at arm’s length out of anti-war sentiment or otherwise, but we cannot afford to abandon the actual human beings within it now. Leaving vulnerable service members to navigate a lawless command structure alone may allow the military to be turned into a weapon against our own democracy.
An understanding between civilians and veterans could go a long way in strengthening the forces of reform anyway. Take healthcare reform or student debt cancellation. Because our volunteer military relies heavily on the “poverty draft,” where access to higher education, comprehensive medical care, and basic financial security is leveraged as a recruitment tool, robust civilian social safety nets would take away the best carrots the armed forces have to dangle. As a result, we cannot meaningfully discuss these domestic social policies without simultaneously analyzing how our military model relies on these structural inequities. When we talk about almost any issue facing this country, the state of the military-industrial complex is relevant.
Ultimately, we cannot separate the fate of the troops from the fate of our own domestic battles. If we let those who swore an oath to support the Constitution fall, what will be left? Let’s not find out.
If you are a veteran, you possess a unique credibility on these issues, and I hope you join me in leveraging it. But if you are a civilian, I hope you recognize that the subversion of the military threatens the architecture of our democracy and join us too. We could use your help.
There is a new call of duty now, and we must answer. Our voices will be louder together.
Julie Roland was a Naval Officer for ten years, deploying to both the South China Sea and the Persian Gulf as a helicopter pilot before separating in June 2025 as a Lieutenant Commander. She has a law degree from the University of San Diego, a Master of Laws from Columbia University, and is a member of the Truman National Security Project.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More