In this edition of #ListenFirstFriday, the 17-year-old founder of YAP Politics discusses efforts to bridge the polarizations between political affiliations.
Video: #ListenFirstFriday Yap Politics
#ListenFirst Friday Yap Politics
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 meeting of the Cabinet in the Cabinet Room of the White House on January 29, 2026 in Washington, DC.
Getty Images, Win McNamee
Trump’s Troubled Appointees Face Scandals, Backlash, and Low Support
Mar 25, 2026
Besides the ill-defined Iranian war, DOJ-FBI created the Epstein file debacle, tariff fiasco, Venezuela, Ecuador, Greenland, and Cuba interventions, special elections turning in Democrats’ favor, and the ever-increasing cost for gasoline, health care, mortgages, rent, prescription drugs, food, clothing, natural gas, electricity, and Agri-fertilizer, President Trump has other problems.
YouGov polling reveals that nearly all of Trump’s second-term political appointees are net-unpopular. Let’s examine six of Trump’s most troubling appointees.
Kristi Noem
Fifty-two GOP and seven Democratic senators confirmed Kristi Noem’s appointment to serve as Department of Homeland Security (DHS) secretary. After Noem gutted FEMA, received hundreds of court orders for unconstitutional immigration actions, spent $220 million for self-promoting DHS ads, and her ICE agents killed two citizens in Minnesota and one resident in Texas, Mr. Trump had seen enough and on March 5 told Noem, “You’re fired.”
Pete Hegseth
Mr. Hegseth’s tenure as Secretary of Defense commenced unfavorably when a journalist and several unauthorized individuals were included in a Signal chat where details about immigrant strikes on Houthi targets were revealed. Hegseth’s mismanagement is under investigation by the Pentagon.
Gerard Baker, a journalist for the conservative-oriented Wall Street Journal, criticized Hegseth in a March 10 essay where Baker described Hegseth’s Iran wartime oratory language as “cringe-making … `death and destruction from the sky all day long’ is the sort that would be rejected by the cartoonists at Marvel Comics.”
On March 13, Hegseth said of the Iran war, “no quarter, no mercy for our enemies” (the refusal to take prisoners and execute everyone), which violates international law and the 1966 War Crimes Act; a serious red flag.
Currently, only 29% of citizens feel Hegseth should remain in office (Truthout).
Pam Bondi
As Trump’s attorney general, Ms. Bondi fired the Department of Justice’s top ethics adviser. Bondi then fired the head of the Office of Professional Responsibility, which investigates DOJ attorney misconduct. Bondi did not fill either position. Legal experts and former judges say the DOJ is now an “ethics-free workplace” (Liz Oyer, March 5).
Despite a December 2025 legal deadline requiring the release of all Epstein files, lawmakers maintain that around 50% of the files remain unreleased (ABC News). It’s not surprising that a March 2026 poll revealed only 22% of Americans believe she should remain in office (Truthout).
RFK Jr’s leadership of the Health and Human Services agency has created turmoil through a series of anti-medical science decisions from issues related to children’s vaccines, mental health grants, fluoridated water, anti-vaccine advisory board, and autism holocaust. A front page headline from March 14-15’s Wall Street Journal spoke volumes: White House puts RFK on tight leash.
Kash Patel
Kash Patel’s tenure as FBI director has been marked by multiple high-profile controversies, centering on the politicization of the bureau, personnel vendettas, public misstatements, the erosion of institutional norms, the use of FBI resources for personal conduct, strains with foreign intelligence partners, and the handling of the Charlie Kirk assassination investigation.
A Feb. 17 Rasmussen Report notes low morale exists among current and former FBI employees. 66% of Americans have unfavorable or very unfavorable opinions of Mr. Patel.
Stephen Miller
Mr. Miller, White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, has been a central figure in the Trump administration’s far-right, populist, pro-tariff, and anti-immigration policies (Parmar & Furse; Nagel; Bose; and Apel). In 2021, Jean Guerrero, an American investigative journalist, characterized Miller as a white nationalist.
As of Jan. 27, 2026, YouGov polling found that only 17% of respondents have a positive impression of Miller.
Brendan Carr
When Mr. Carr, chair of the Federal Communications Commission, threatened to revoke broadcast licenses for ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, and PBS for being critical of President Trump, freedom of the press and civil liberty groups came unglued.
Suspending Jimmy Kimmel’s show from ABC and cancelling Stephen Colbert’s `The Late Show’ were too much for Americans. Mess with Americans’ TV and here’s the result: only 19% of Americans have a positive opinion of Mr. Carr (Quinnipiac poll).
Reality and Resolve
In an essay I opined, titled `Best and Worse U.S. Presidential Cabinets Ranked: What the Research Reveals,’ published Sept. 3, 2025 in The Fulcrum, research revealed Mr. Trump’s first- and second-term cabinets were the worst in US history, citing his “cabinets have been widely criticized for their lack of qualifications … appointments based on loyalty over capability … and poorly vetted appointees ….”
With over $1 billion in taxpayer funds spent – every year- to keep the Senate operating, we should expect better-vetted, approved presidential appointees.
Let your two Senators know how disappointed you are in their role in permitting Hegseth, Bondi, RFK Jr., Patel, Miller, and Carr to remain on the taxpayer’s payroll while Trump’s appointees are irresponsibly serving their 348 million American constituents. Senators’ and citizens’ silence effectively endorses the status quo.
Americans’ sentiment is clear. Mr. Trump: Say it again six more times, “you’re fired!”
Steve Corbin is a professor emeritus of marketing at the University of Northern Iowa and a non-paid freelance guest columnist contributor to 158 newspapers and 47 social media platforms in 44 states
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
man in gray hoodie and blue denim jeans kneeling on green grass field during daytime
Photo by Tim Mossholder on Unsplash
Cancel Cesar Chavez: Continue The Fight For Justice
Mar 25, 2026
As a young journalist, I covered the funeral of Cesar Chavez in 1993 and have interviewed Dolores Huerta several times over the past 30 years.
They were heroes to me and my family, icons of the Chicano civil rights movement.
Reading this week in The New York Times the allegations that Chavez raped Huerta and groomed and assaulted minor girls was devastating. My heart felt like it split open knowing one of our greatest civil rights leaders was capable of such evil.
As a child my mother’s family in the 1950s migrated from picking cotton in Texas to Midwestern states, where they picked beets and tomatoes.
They eventually made it to rural Illinois and transitioned from farm work to factory work in Chicago. But my mother never forgot her farm worker roots.
Growing up in the Chicago suburbs in the 1970s, as a family we picketed local grocery stores asking people to boycott lettuce and grapes. My parents taught us about the history of the farm worker movement and its leaders Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta.
For more than 60 years, Huerta held on to the secret of her coercion and assault that resulted in her secretly having two of Chavez’s children.
Huerta issued a public statement Wednesday, “I have never identified myself as a victim, but I now understand that I am a survivor — of violence, of sexual abuse, of domineering men who saw me, and other women, as property, or things to control.”
In the 1998 interview I did with Huerta she acknowledged that she and Chavez would argue. It was her idea for a grape boycott. He wanted it to be a potato boycott.
“It took a fight to get that. In fact, probably the only reason I won that fight was because he was on the seventh day of a fast and he was weak,” she told me. “We never argued about philosophy because we shared the same philosophy. We argued about strategy. Should it be grapes or potatoes? Sometimes he would win, and sometimes I would win.”
She did not reveal to me or anyone until now the deeper reality of their encounters.
For too long we haven’t believed women, or offered them protection from predators. This has created a culture of silence.
In the case of Jeffrey Epstein, an estimated 1,000 girls and young women were trafficked. Besides Epstein, who died in prison, and Ghislaine Maxwell, sentenced to 20 years in prison for conspiring to sexually abuse minors, nobody else has been charged.
We know the names of other men in the files from former President Bill Clinton to current President Donald Trump, the latter mentioned at least 38,000 times. They should and other men in the files should be investigated.
At least in the United Kingdom Prince Andrew was arrested but not for sexual abuse but for alleged misconduct in office.
It is unconscionable the U.S. is not investigating the men in the Epstein files.The accountability for the victims is nonexistent. Now who will be held accountable since Chavez died in 1993?
It’s important to investigate who knew about Chavez’s grooming of girls at his compound and if there are other victims who may yet come forward.
The message must be swift and clear. Cesar Chavez day, celebrated in California and other states as an official holiday on March 31, should be cancelled as a holiday.
Already the United Farm Workers Foundation has cancelled Chavez Day activities. There are reports of cancellations of events in Arizona, California and Texas. A Chavez memorial statue at Fresno State was immediately covered up after news broke. Chavez’s name should be taken off streets, schools and other landmarks. His murals should be painted over.
Instead on March 31 the world should honor all people who have been victims of sexual abuse and violence.
It’s important to remember the values of the movement of economic equality for the farm workers who feed our country and still toil in the fields.
Today, the movement matters as farm workers, immigrants and Latinos are targets of the ICE raids. The fight for economic justice, civil rights and worker protections continues. Huerta, 95, who has fought for this justice, fairness and equity, continues her pursuit.
“The farmworker movement has always been bigger and far more important than any one individual,” Huerta said in her statement. “Cesar’s actions do not diminish the permanent improvements achieved for farmworkers with the help of thousands of people. We must continue to engage and support our community, which needs advocacy and activism now more than ever.”
I’m reminded of how Huerta leads a chant at the end of most of her speeches. I last heard her speak in Albuquerque in the summer of 2023.
“Who’s got the power?
We’ve got the power!
What kind of power?
People power!
She ended with the phrase she coined, “Yes, we can.”
¡Sí, se puede!”
Yes, we can keep fighting for justice for women and workers.
Cancel Cesar Chavez: Continue The Fight For Justice was first published on CA Latino News and was republished with permission. CALN is an affiliate of the Latino News Network.
Teresa Puente is an assistant professor at California State University, Long Beach. She teaches courses in News Reporting and Ethics, Social Media Communication, and Bilingual Magazine Reporting and Production.
Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to reporters as he and Secretary of State Marco Rubio (L) depart the White House on their way to Florida on March 20, 2026 in Washington, DC.
(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
President Trump Demonstrates Why Euphemisms Damage Democracy
Mar 24, 2026
In politics, words matter. In democratic politics, they matter even more.
Great political leaders have long recognized that fact.
Perhaps no modern American President understood that as much as John F. Kennedy. Speaking at Amherst College, one month before his assassination, Kennedy paid tribute to the power of words this way: “Poetry,” he said, is “the means of saving power from itself.”
“When power leads men towards arrogance,” Kennedy continued, “poetry reminds him of his limitations. When power narrows the areas of man's concern, poetry reminds him of the richness and diversity of his existence. When power corrupts, poetry cleanses.”
I cannot imagine President Trump ever thinking or saying anything like that. The president seems to have little feel for the English language.
He uses words as weapons, not to inspire or cleanse, but to demonize and trivialize. When he does not use them that way, he turns to euphemisms to distract citizens and hide what is really going on.
Trump’s assault on language is an assault on democracy itself. “Authoritarianism,” Mike Brock argues, “thrives in ambiguity. It requires linguistic fog to operate…. Every euphemism is a small surrender. Every hedge is a tiny collaboration. Every refusal to speak plainly is a gift to those who profit from confusion.”
The latest example of the president’s assault on language is seen in his insistence on calling the war in Iran an “excursion.” On March 11, he described the war this way: “We did an excursion. You know what an excursion is? We had to take a little trip to get rid of some evil, very evil people.”
A little trip? An excursion?
When we think of excursions, we think of vacations, the object of which is relaxation, exploration, or pleasure. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, its earliest known use dates from 1537.
But from then until now, I dare say no one has used it to describe dropping bombs, devastating cities, killing civilians, and disrupting the global economy. Trump’s use of a euphemism to describe those things is cynical and dangerous.
Recall the words of former Vice President Dick Cheney, who warned of “the emergence of euphemisms that strive to put an imaginary distance between the American people and the terrorist enemy. Apparently, using the term ‘war’ where terrorists are concerned is starting to feel a bit dated. So, henceforth we’re advised by the administration to think of the fight against terrorists as ‘Overseas contingency operations.’”
He went on to say, “In the event of another terrorist attack on America, the Homeland Security Department assures us it will be ready for this, quote, ‘man-made disaster’ – never mind that the whole Department was created for the purpose of protecting Americans from terrorist attack.”
Of course, Cheney himself had euphemized torture as “enhanced interrogation.” But his warning is valuable, nonetheless.
Decades before Cheney’s admonition, the great writer George Orwell pointed out that when governments commit grave injustices or inflict pain and suffering on people, they often try to sanitize what they are doing by using euphemisms. Writing in the immediate aftermath of World War II, Orwell said, “All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia. When the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer.”
Seems like an apt description of the Trump era.
“Political speech and writing,” Orwell noted, “are largely the defence of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face….”
“Thus,” he observed, “political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness.”
Trump is not the first president, since Orwell wrote, to dangerously abuse language during wartime. Almost before the ink was dry on Orwell’s essay, President Harry Truman was calling the Korean War a “police action.”
But avoiding the language of war is about more than simply getting around the Constitution’s allocation of the power to declare war to Congress. As the Atlantic’s Gal Beckerman observes, “Leaders are sidestepping the term not just to avoid liability, but because Americans clearly want nothing to do with what it signifies. For most people, after the experience of Iraq and Afghanistan, war is just another word for ‘quagmire.’”
When the president calls the Iran war an “excursion,” he trivializes the suffering that the war in Iran has brought there and around the world. Moreover, as Virginia Senator Tim Kaine observes, the president’s way of “characterizing this (the war) is deeply disrespectful” to those in the service and to their families
As the New York Times notes, “Bombs are exploding in Iran and the Middle East, but the fallout is rattling households and businesses in neighborhoods all over the globe. In Kansas, home buyers saw 30-year mortgage rates edge above 6 percent this week. In Western India, families mourning the death of a loved one discovered that gas-fired crematories had been temporarily closed.”
“The widening war,” the Times says, “…has delivered a stunning punch to a worldwide economy that has already been walloped by a breakdown of the international trading order, war in Ukraine, and President Trump’s chaotic policymaking.”
And beyond that, there is the untold environmental damage being done by billions of dollars' worth of bombs. A report in Forbes explains that “Explosions can release huge amounts of particles into the air…The environmental consequences of this process can last long after the fighting stops.”
But the damage does not stop there.
The president’s resort to euphemism does serious damage to the democratic process. Democracy can only thrive when leaders care about what they say and say what they mean.
Orwell gets it right when he observes, “If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” That is Trump’s project, to use language to corrupt thought.
It is odd but not surprising that a president who has made a career of using the most violent and inflammatory language to carry on his campaign of demonizing his opponents turns to euphemism to describe his campaign of violence in Iran.
In words that seem prescient, Orwell warned, “that the present political chaos is connected with the decay of language.” Only by rescuing language can democracy be rescued as well.
Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College.
Keep ReadingShow less
President Donald Trump speaks to members of the media traveling on Air Force One while heading to Miami on March 7, 2026.
(Photo by Roberto Schmidt/Getty Images)
A President in Sheep’s Clothing and a Democracy in Decline
Mar 16, 2026
Like a wolf in sheep’s clothing, America’s president is undermining the Republic by evading checks, consolidating power, and attacking democratic norms. He disguises his malicious intentions as innocence while dismantling policies and programs that would help citizens.
In earlier opinions, I wrote about three forces that corrode democracy: hypocrisy, corruption, and confusion. Hypocrisy creates a false image of leadership; corruption erodes public trust and suppresses voter participation; confusion keeps the public from seeing the truth. Together, they weaken the Republic.
A president who once declared, “I alone can fix it" now demands concentrated power while the country crumbles. He presents himself as a stabilizing force yet governs through intimidation. He speaks of restoring order while undermining the institutions that make order possible.
This fable of The Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing applies to public life. In the story, the wolf disguises himself as a sheep to confuse the flock and move freely among them. The disguise is not a costume — it is a strategy. It allows the wolf to deceive. The president uses a similar disguise. He wraps himself in patriotic language while weakening systems that safeguard the nation. He claims to defend the country while demanding loyalty to himself. He presents himself as a protector while pursuing power and money.
Confusion is not accidental. It is engineered to dull public judgment. When leaders flood public life with contradictions and manufactured crises, citizens lose the ability to distinguish governance from performance. A leader who creates chaos then presents himself as the one strong enough to control it. This strategy is not hidden. Project 2025 — a blueprint for consolidating executive power — is a public declaration of intent. Yet Congress, the branch designed to check presidential overreach, remains silent. Silence is not neutrality. Silence is permission — and it leaves citizens relying on their own judgment to see what leaders refuse to confront.
On January 20, 2025, he raised his right hand, repeated the oath, and immediately began performing duties that bore no resemblance to service to the people. Beneath the disguise, consequences were immediate: Families were separated and jailed. A violent immigration crackdown spread across the country. Innocent Americans were killed by ICE agents. DEI programs were dismantled. Journalists were humiliated and imprisoned. Personal voting data was collected. He pretended to protect the people but governed to protect himself. He pretended to be a reformer but dismantled systems that safeguard fairness.
The pattern extended beyond domestic policy. He invaded Venezuela in January 2026 and ordered strikes on Iran in February 2026, bypassing congressional authorization — a sweeping assertion of executive power. He pretends to be strong but relies on confusion, cover‑ups, and spectacle. His actions reveal a pattern of power without accountability. It is a performance — a fraudulent one — yet his loyalists ignore and excuse his overreach and abuse of power.
Americans watched as he built a cabinet designed for obedience. Nominees were individuals whose wealth insulated them from accountability and prevented them from challenging him. Those appointed to key positions were chosen not for experience, but for their role in crafting Project 2025 — a plan designed to concentrate presidential power by weakening the institutions meant to check him. These were not ordinary appointments; they were strategic placements. The very people who helped write the plan were positioned to carry it out. The intent was unmistakable: reshape the federal system so that loyalty to the president would outweigh loyalty to the Constitution.
Those strategic placements had consequences. Cabinet members and leaders in Congress have a responsibility not to the president, but to the Constitution and Americans. Yet many chose to reinforce the president’s falsehoods, applaud his distortions, and shield him from accountability. Rather than offering honest counsel and transparency, they echoed his claims. Rather than checking his excesses and overreach, they enabled them. Their silence — and their applause — do not protect us. They protect him.
On February 24, 2026, he delivered the longest presidential address in modern history — a marathon of exaggerations, self‑congratulation, and false claims. He boasted that he had taken prescription drug prices from the highest in the world to the lowest. He bragged about accomplishments that never materialized. He never mentioned unkept promises: relief on housing, food, or healthcare. And yet, despite the spectacle, his approval rating remained low — a sign the public no longer buys his lies. His loyalists applauded anyway, not because they believed him, but because loyalty has replaced judgment. That loyalty came at a cost.
He ignored the Epstein victims’ search for truth and closure, offering no acknowledgment of their suffering, while praising the hockey players he suggested had “fought on his behalf”. This is not leadership. It is favoritism disguised as strength.
Democratic decline rarely begins with a dramatic collapse. It begins with smaller fractures: norms stretched before they are broken, oversight criticized before it is weakened, elections questioned before they are undermined, institutions attacked before they are ignored. When a president claims the power to decide which laws apply to him, the public loses the ability to hold him accountable — unless citizens exercise independent judgment.
When he undermines the legitimacy of elections, the people lose their voice. When he attacks independent institutions, the nation loses its safeguards. Concentrated power does not return what it takes. It must be stopped — to prevent deepening inequality, to protect democratic processes, to guard against tyranny, and to preserve liberty itself. That is why constitutional clarity matters.
But the Constitution does not give the final word to any president. It gives it to the people. Democracy is not the property of any party or state — red, blue, or purple. For the Republic to endure, citizens must exercise their constitutional rights, demand that Congress use its power of checks and balances, and engage in civic responsibility.
Americans must see leaders as they are and refuse to surrender their judgment to noise, division, fear, or personality. Political judgment is about choosing sides. Citizen judgment is about choosing the Republic. Political judgment asks, “Which team am I on?” Citizen judgment asks, “What protects the Constitution and the common good?” One is driven by loyalty, personality, or party identity; the other by responsibility, research, and reflection.
Political judgment rewards performance, outrage, and allegiance. Citizen judgment evaluates whether leaders tell the truth, respect limits on power, and uphold their oath. Political judgment applauds a leader’s claims because he is “ours.” Citizen judgment checks whether those claims are real — and whether they strengthen or weaken democratic institutions.
Political judgment narrows the lens to winning. Citizen judgment widens it to safeguarding the Republic.
Judgment matters most when public life is clouded by confusion and spectacle. It requires research, self‑awareness, and reflection on how past choices shape the present. Voters must examine how their decisions affect the Republic, resist tactics meant to distract or divide, and demand accountability and transparency from every public official. Congress must prevent the concentration of power, exercise oversight, and uphold its constitutional responsibilities.
Citizens must vote, hold peaceful protests, challenge federal overreach, support a free press, and insist on separation of powers and judicial independence.
We must not allow the wolf to destroy our democracy. We strengthen the Republic when we let him know that we see who he is — and refuse to be misled. Democracy is not self‑correcting. It is citizen‑correcting. Judgment is not just a civic duty; it is the last line of protection between a free people and the concentrated power that seeks to weaken them.
_____________________________________________________________________
Carolyn Goode is a retired educational leader and national advocate for ethical leadership, civic responsibility, and institutional accountability. She writes about democratic norms, public trust, and the moral responsibilities of citizenship.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More
Trump’s ‘Just for Fun’ War Talk Shows a Dangerous Trivialization