Nearly half of all Americans have stopped talking to someone about political topics because of something they have said in person or online. Our culture of contempt continues to divide us and make governing together more difficult. In this episode of the How Do We Fix It podcast, Peter Coleman, a leading expert on conflict resolution, discusses a way forward.
President Joe Biden and President-elect Donald Trump arrive for the inauguration ceremony in the U.S. Capitol rotunda in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 20, 2025.
With all the attention deservedly on President Trump and what he intends to do with his defiant return to the White House, there’s a more than good chance we’ll spend the next four years consumed once again by all things Trump.
There’s already been a dizzying amount: a giant raft of executive orders; attacks on a constitutional amendment; his threats to invade sovereign nations; a seeming Nazi salute from one of his biggest surrogates; his sweeping Jan. 6 pardons; his beef with a bishop; his TikTok flip-flop; his billion-dollar meme coin controversy; scathing new allegations against one of his Cabinet picks; unilaterally renaming a body of water; a federal crackdown on DEI; promises of immigration raids across major cities. All this in just the first three days of Trump’s second term.
And this may be his greatest trick — getting not only his own fans and supporters to obsess over him, but his critics and opponents, too.
He does that by flooding the zone — he is never not talking, posting, pointing fingers, ranting, raving, and keeping us all in a never-ending game of whack-a-mole.
The problem with that is that so much gets missed. For Republicans, that often inures to their advantage, as they get to slip significant policy changes past an unsuspecting public, or bury bad news under the pile of Trump’s ever-mounting detritus.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
But for Democrats, four more years of Trump distractions could mean they miss yet another opportunity to fix their own house, and mount a serious and convincing challenger to end what could be 12 more years of Republican rule in Washington.
They need to find their Ronald Reagan.
Trump’s first term was marked by unprecedented chaos, and Dems admittedly got lured into Trump’s expanding web of distractions. While they busied themselves with investigations and hearings in order to make Trump as weak a president and candidate in 2020 as possible, they weren’t as focused on identifying and cultivating a Democratic candidate, a Democratic message, and Democratic policies that could deliver a fatal blow to the Trump era once and for all.
Over the course of Trump’s first term, his approval rating was never above water, fluctuating between a low of 35% and a high of 49%. After a term marked by civil unrest, incompetence, moral and ethical failures, conspiracy theories, extremism, mismanaging COVID-19, and overseeing Republican losses in the House and the Senate, America was decidedly tired of Trump’s ineptitude and self-destructiveness.
Joe Biden emerged from a crowded 2020 Democratic primary and a general election not with a political mandate but with a collective sigh of relief — he was elected to turn the page on Trump, and then (hopefully) pass on the torch to a younger, fresher, forward-looking Dem.
That, as we know, did not happen. Not only didn’t Biden want to pass the torch, but Democrats didn’t seem to want to architect a winning platform of dynamic messages and successful policies to keep their existing coalition and attract new voters.
Instead, they stuck with old messages that largely centered around Trump: he’s anti-democratic, he’s a convicted felon, and he’s going to end access to abortion.
They also boasted of demonstrably failing policies, insisting the economy was strong as hell, the border wasn’t a crisis, and crime was down.
Without a candidate, messages, or policies that transcended Trump, Democrats were once again playing Trump’s whack-a-mole game.
Instead of finding their own Ronald Reagan, an enormously popular president who not only transformed the conservative movement and the Republican Party, but America and in fact the world, Dems found a Jimmy Carter — a well-intentioned man whose messages and policies nevertheless inspired little confidence in the party.
Instead of setting off 12 years of party control like Reagan did, Dems eked out just four, and now risk finding themselves in the political wilderness.
Democrats must find their Reagan now — a candidate whose utility isn’t just to temporarily sideline Trump but vanquish him and his would-be successors for good.
Who that might be is both an open question and a problem. Democrats’ abject failures in places like California, New York and Chicago shine an ugly spotlight on some of the party’s biggest faces and worst policies. Other boldface names are either too old or too extreme. Identity politics, egos, and intraparty disagreements could easily get in the way.
Democrats must rebuild their party with new faces and new ideas, winning policies and inspiring messages.
For many of us, the next four years under Trump feel like an eternity. But for Democrats, they’ll come and go in the blink of an eye. What they do with that time will change history — possibly forever.
S.E. Cupp: Where is the Democratic Party’s Ronald Reagan? was originally published by the Tribune Content Agency and is shared with permission.S.E. Cupp is the host of "S.E. Cupp Unfiltered" on CNN.
There were 14 Missourians, me among them, who were negatively impacted recently by President Donald Trump’s pardons to the approximately 1,500 individuals who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. We all saw a demonstration in real time about just what kind of people are part of that group that has now been set free to continue spreading fear on behalf of this president.
Trump granted “full, complete and unconditional” clemency to the Jan. 6 rioters. Among them was Henry "Enrique" Tarrio. From 2018 to 2021, Tarrio was the head of the Proud Boys, a far-right, neo-fascist organization which promotes political violence.
Tarrio had been convicted and sentenced to 22 years in federal prison for seditious conspiracy and other charges related to Jan. 6. That was until this past Jan. 20, when Trump, on his first day back in office, pardoned him.
This past weekend, I joined more than 1,150 patriots who traveled to Washington, D.C., for the all-volunteer, fifth annual Principles First Summit to listen, debate and learn how to communicate the Principles First’s set of 15 principles.
Principles First founder Heath Mayo describes the grassroots movement like this: “Principles define who we are, what we believe in, and the type of country we’ll become. That’s why we choose to put them first — before politicians and before party.”
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Many call Principles First an “Anti-Trump” group. While many are “Never Trump” conservatives, many others have recently joined because they worry about the state of our democracy and the direction that the country is moving in. Principles First offers a positive way forward promoting principles that include honesty, integrity and respect for the supremacy of the Constitution and the rule of law.
Our meeting was interrupted twice — once on Saturday, and once, and more dangerously, on Sunday.
On Saturday, Tarrio turned up at the conference site and confronted former Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia officer Michael Fanone and former U.S. Capitol Police Sgt. Harry Dunn, both of whom defended the Capitol during the Jan. 6 attack.
Tarrio called Fanone and Dunn “cowards” and told them to “keep walking,” as he and a group of his supporters filmed and followed them through the hotel.
Shortly after noon on Sunday, organizers of the Principles First Summit received an email from someone claiming to have planted two pipe bombs at the JW Marriott Hotel in D.C., as well as at the home of former national security adviser John Bolton and at Fanone’s mother’s house.
The email also threatened many of the summit’s speakers, saying they “all deserved to die.”
The threat was sent from an untraceable address with the signature “Enrique T.” It was presented as a way “To honor the J6 hostages recently released by Emperor Trump.”
Tarrio denies any involvement. There is an active and ongoing investigation by law enforcement into the bomb threat.
Yes, the terrorists succeeded in instilling fear, at least in me. As the brave men, women and dogs of the Metropolitan Police Department swept the hotel for the pipe bombs, all I could think of was wanting to see my family again.
But they did not win. Once we got the “All clear,” it was my honor and pleasure to welcome and introduce our next set of speakers.
For the record, I am a member of Principles First Board of Directors. As noted above, this is an all-volunteer organization. I do not receive any compensation for my involvement.
While you may or may not agree with the positions shared, it was our right under the First Amendment of the Constitution to gather and share freely. Every American has this privilege, and they should not be terrorized for exercising this right to free speech. There were attendees who traveled on their own dime to attend from 44 states across the country.
I am not naive enough to believe that the FBI, under the direction of Kash Patel and newly appointed Deputy FBI Director Dan Bongino, will adequately investigate the events that occurred.
Nor am I under any illusion that the Trump supporters among Missouri’s U.S. Congressional delegation will stand up for the 14 of us from their state and condemn the behavior aimed at their constituents.
I am deeply saddened to say that this is where and how we live now in America. Only when voters stand up and say, No, this is not who we are, will things change for the better.
From Trump’s pardoned fans, intimidation, and bomb threats was first published in The St. Louis Post-Dispatch and was republished with permission.
Lynn Schmidt is a Post-Dispatch columnist and Editorial Board member. SchmidtOpinions@gmail.com.
U.S. President Donald Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron hold a joint press conference in the East Room at the White House on February 24, 2025 in Washington, DC.
Despite a tumultuous set of political activities this past week, an intriguing opportunity was revealed, one that points to what might be a more effective path toward healing our contemporary American Schism.
As has been discussed frequently in recent years, many of Trump’s unorthodox actions and pronouncements serve primarily as political theater. His unconventional and often outrageous statements deliberately deploy emotional triggers, which serve as stimuli to effectively delight his MAGA supporters on the one hand, while simultaneously enraging his opponents. The latter usually adopt one of two response strategies: they either take the bait and indignantly riposte in-kind, or they stay silent, exhausted by the frequency of Trump’s provocation. What has now become abundantly clear is that both of these responses play right into Trump’s hand. Silencing the “resistance” is Trump’s first goal. But should the opposition choose the other path and retort with a sanctimonious counter, the very substance of any substantive policy disagreement therein becomes veiled by the acrimonious tone, resulting in a Trump win here as well.
Neither of these reactions is effective. But what I believe might portend a more effective strategy was employed last week by French President Emmanuel Macron.
To understand this alternative approach, one has to recognize that Trump’s oratorical strategy typically relies on conflating two or more ingredients in one pronouncement, usually a rant. The first is a valid policy idea based on a politically unpopular partial truth that has merit and bears consideration; the second is an inflammatory distortion, a set of lies, or a rewriting of recent events that deflects the policy issue through the reaction it has triggered.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Case in point: Following Trump’s bilateral discussion with Putin last week, Trump’s plum pudding remarks conflated two completely distinct components: One, the idea of Europe needing to shoulder the costs of its defense going forward, which presents a reasonable policy debate. The other, a reprise of Putin’s propaganda—a warped rewriting of the recent history of Russia’s invasion commencing the Ukrainian war—was the lodestone that drew the loudest response.
And unsurprisingly, this week we did observe both foreseeable responses. Senate Republicans, with a few brave exceptions, chose silence. President Zelensky, whom Trump personally attacked, defensively retorted, and most Democrats displayed their disdain for the explosive rhetoric without commenting on the obscured substantive policy ideas.
But President Macro took a different approach.
His very notable speech bifurcated the various ingredients that Trump calculatedly muddled. First and foremost, Macron corrected the history by clearly articulating the truth that Russia was and still is the aggressor in the conflict. Second, he drew a clear line in the sand on policy, asserting that any peace settlement that ‘gives in' to Russia is unacceptable and will not be tolerated by the European Union. But third, on policy, he conceded the point to Trump. He explicitly accepted the legitimacy of the debate over burden-sharing within NATO (one of Trump’s consistent refrains), whilst at the same time, demonstrating that distorting historical facts to fit political narratives is unacceptable.
As Steven Jordan eloquently writes, Macron clearly called out the part of Trump’s rhetoric “which aligns with Putin’s revisionist history and shifts blame onto Zelensky. [Trump’s oratory] undermines the moral and strategic clarity needed to counter Russian aggression. Peace cannot be built on falsehoods, nor can Western security be maintained by ignoring reality.”
While Macron is facing tremendous domestic challenges amidst the parallel French schism (which, arguably, he himself has exacerbated), he is nonetheless emerging as the European leader with a veritable defense strategy for the continent. One that demands increased defense spending and less dependence on the U.S. He has embraced the reality that Europe has for too long relied on the U.S. for its defense and that, as Trump has suggested, Europe needs to shoulder the responsibility for its own security going forward.
Further, his maneuvering demonstrated his political savvy. Macron eschewed criticism of Trump and, instead, extricated the validity of Trump’s chosen path from the remainder of Trump’s jumble. He acknowledged the U.S. President’s right to step away from Europe and that European past and present dependence on the U.S. is no longer tenable. Macron, in a bold display of the leadership for which he rarely gets credit, framed this inevitable new direction as a challenge that Europeans must face. Convincing his European peers, such as Scholz and Starmer, to follow his lead will be no easy task, but by leveraging the reality of the pressure Europe faces to chart this new path, Macron’s words mark the end of an era and the beginning of a new one.
And he also teaches a lesson we all need to learn: Namely, if we are to survive Trump 2.0, we need to acquire and practice a new habit of responding to Trump’s logical ideas seriously, while still calling out his lies and not getting triggered by his bombast.
Seth David Radwell is the author of “American Schism: How the Two Enlightenments Hold the Secret to Healing our Nation” and serves on the Advisory Councils at Business for America, RepresentUs, and The Grand Bargain Project.This is the third entry in the American Schism 2025 Series.
An illustration of someone erasing the word "democracy".
“In this courtroom and under my watch, the rule of law is a bright beacon which I intend to follow,” Judge John Coughenour commented on Trump’s efforts to undo birthright citizenship.
When Trump’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) offered federal employees the ability to retire early in exchange for continued pay until September, it referred to the offer as a “fork in the road.” Employees could either take the deal or face "significant" reforms, layoffs, and an expectation that they be "loyal." Putting aside the offer’s legality, the message was clear: either take the deal or face uncertainty and possible termination.
With each week, Americans are facing more “forks in the road.”
The Trump administration, backed by his Project 2025 allies, continues its assault on the rule of law—facing little opposition from Republican leadership, including here in Virginia.
The latest move? Slashing already-appropriated National Institute of Health (NIH) funding for research institutions tackling cancer, infectious diseases, and dementia—institutions like the University of Virginia, Virginia Tech, and Virginia Commonwealth University. In the Commonwealth, this is significant; these three universities alone will bring over $400 million in research to the state this year. The funding supports 7,684 jobs and generates $1.73 billion in yearly economic activity. But in other states, including many that voted for Trump, the stakes are even higher. Places like Vanderbilt Medical Center in Tennessee, MD Anderson Cancer Center in Texas, Washington University in St. Louis, University of Alabama at Birmingham, and Cincinnati Children's Hospital in Ohio stand to lose millions as their research is placed in jeopardy.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Trump tried this before, pushing to cut NIH overhead funding in 2017, but Congress rejected it. Now, he is bypassing Congress altogether, issuing what is likely another illegal executive directive to do so. Republican statewide leaders remain on the sidelines, either complicity silent or, in the case of Virginia Gov. Youngkin, embracing the cuts as “common sense.”
Few would argue against finding greater efficiencies in our research institutions. But does this slash-and-burn approach make sense? And is it even legal?
That answer may come soon. Arguing that the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2024 prohibits the administration from changing overhead rates without congressional approval, twenty-two state attorneys general have sued to block the cuts. Not one Republican Attorney General, including Virginia’s own Jason Miyares, has joined them. A federal court has ordered NIH payments to temporarily resume—but only to institutions in those 22 states. Research institutions in other states, including Virginia, are now on the outside looking in. Their funding—and their ability to deliver groundbreaking research—is in jeopardy. Will Virginia or other Republican AGs join the lawsuit? Don’t count on it.
A SLOW-MOVING CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS
Many of Trump’s early moves have stalled as the result of dozens of lawsuits in court. But to assume his agenda has been seriously compromised would be a mistake and misunderstand a larger scheme aimed at the heart of our institutions and even democracy itself. The playbook is simple: create disruption and force dilemmas. Begin with an issue with broad public appeal—like government efficiency or cuts to universities. Then, issue a directive that goes far beyond what is necessary, sidestepping Congress in the process. Trump’s far-reaching directive to freeze funding to a wide swath of nonprofits is a classic example. The opposition is left to respond by press releases or filing lawsuits. If courts uphold Trump’s edict, he wins. If the courts strike down Trump’s directive, he then attacks the judiciary and appeals, hoping for a favorable ruling from a higher court. If all else fails, quietly ignore the court order—as happened when federal funds for some programs remained frozen even after a judge ordered their release.
Throughout the debate, Trump’s allies continue to assert the power of the Presidency, attack our institutions, and suggest that our democratic process and Constitution do not work as intended. What results is an increase in anger among large segments of the electorate that question democracy’s ability to deliver on its promises, or who believe that Trump is merely trying to root out the malingerers in a bloated federal bureaucracy. Whether this amounts to a “coup” can be argued, but the pattern is clear: Trump is actively undermining the institutions that uphold democracy. The real question is what happens years from now when legitimacy has been further eroded and the damage is irreversible.
GOP IN LOCKSTEP
As Trump tests the rule of law, Republican elected leaders remain silent or endorse his actions.
Nine of the 10 states most dependent on federal funds as a share of their total revenue both voted for Trump last fall and have Republican-dominated legislatures. While California is the biggest loser, Texas, Ohio, and Florida are in the top 10. Few GOP leaders have shown any concern about his actions.
When Trump issued an executive order targeting the federal workforce—145,000 of whom live in Virginia—Republican Gov. Youngkin dismissed concerns, calling the federal government "bloated" and saying he expects "job reductions." When the administration proposed that federal employees take early retirement or face "significant" reforms, layoffs, and an expectation that they be "loyal," no Republicans raised questions about whether funding would be available to pay for the buyout. Funding for most federal agencies expires on March 14 and Congress would need to include a special appropriation to make this happen, if it can even pass a supplemental budget to keep the government open by that date. Trump has now ended the early retirement option. Fewer took the offer than expected and we will see if Trump honors his promise.
When Trump attempted to unilaterally overturn birthright citizenship—a direct violation of the 14th Amendment—Youngkin and Miyares said nothing. They were similarly silent when the administration froze federal funds to charitable organizations like Lutheran Services and Commonwealth Catholic Charities, both of which provide services ranging from adoption assistance to food kitchens. Even after 23 Democratic attorneys general sued and convinced two federal judges to halt the freeze, reports surfaced that the administration continued withholding funds, raising the question of whether Trump’s team deliberately violated a court order. And when 11 of Virginia’s 31 federally qualified health centers—many in the state’s poorest areas—reported funding disruptions, neither Youngkin publicly intervened to address the problem.
When Trump proclaimed his disdain for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), stating that it “SHOULD BE TERMINATED!” Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis immediately jumped to his aid, supporting a funding freeze for an agency that has delivered $8.5 billion in relief for twenty-one disasters in his state since 20ll, and suggesting that block funds made to states is a better option than the present arrangement. DeSantis conveniently said nothing about what happens if his state’s block grant is not enough to address the next disaster.
Some red states are even establishing their own government efficiency agencies. Governors in Iowa, Oklahoma, and New Hampshire have done this by executive order, while others are being created by state legislatures like Texas and Missouri. What we have not seen, however, are executive branch freezes of funds previously appropriated by state legislatures.
PROFILES IN COURAGE
Termination of federal employees is now widespread. Reuters reported that 1,000 have been laid off at the Department of Veterans Affairs, and CNN detailed that 2,200 had been fired at the Interior Department. Nonetheless, the Trump train initiatives have significant detractors, some of whom exhibit significant courage in the face of intimidation. When a senior official at FEMA directed subordinates to continue a freeze on funding, even after a federal judge ordered the administration—for the second time—to stop such pauses, four FEMA administrators said no and continued to spend monies authorized by Congress. They were fired.
The most significant resistance, however, is occurring at the Justice Department. When Trump appointees requested that charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams be dropped, seven prosecutors in New York and Washington—including career lawyers overseeing public corruption cases—resigned rather than cooperate, and criticized the DOJ’s action as a “quid pro quo” in exchange for Adams providing assistance for Trump’s deportation actions. These are not liberal attorneys. Instead, many of them are Federalist Society members who clerked for Justices Scalia, Roberts, and Kavanaugh. And their courage provides an example to be emulated.
LITTLE RESPECT FOR COURTS—OR AMERICAN TRADITIONS
Trump has never hidden his contempt for the courts or his disdain for the checks and balances that define American democracy. Now, Vice President J.D. Vance and Elon Musk have taken up the mantle, with Vance claiming that “judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power,” and Musk calling the court rulings against the funding freeze “shady” and “absolutely insane.”
Both seem to ignore Article III of the Constitution and the concept of judicial review—a principle central to American law since the early 1800s that allows federal courts to check executive power. There is a legal way to cut spending—it’s called the congressional appropriations process. As the American Bar Association (ABA) put it, Trump’s approach “may appeal to a few” but is “chaotic,” “wrong,” and “contrary to the rule of law.”
In the coming weeks, expect Trump to flood the zone with more “democracy dilemmas”—manufactured crises designed to expand executive power at the expense of Congress and the courts. And Americans will discover if our leaders will fight for us and protect our system of checks and balances so critical to democratic governance. Our “forks in the road” are likely to be many and will require as much courage as we can summon.
Portions of this post appeared in the Virginia Mercury.
David J. Toscano is an attorney and the former Democratic Leader in the Virginia House of Delegates. He is the author of Fighting Political Gridlock: How States Shape Our Nation and Our Lives, published in 2021 by the University of Virginia Press and Bellwether: Virginia’s Political Transformation, 2006-2020, published in 2022 by Hamilton Books.
