Bridging divides is not about being on the same page; it's about being able to disagree well. And it all relies on one very important foundation: a trusting relationship. On this episode of the Civil Squared podcast, host Jennifer Thompson is joined by founder and CEO of The Village Square, Liz Joyner, to discuss the importance of building trust before you try and build bridges between disagreements on contentious issues.
A rosary adorns a framed photo Alex Pretti that was left at a makeshift memorial in the area where Pretti was shot dead a day earlier by federal immigration agents in Minneapolis, on Jan. 25, 2026.
The killing of Alex Pretti was unjust and unjustified. While protesting — aka “observing” or “interfering with” — deportation operations, the VA hospital ICU nurse came to the aid of two protesters, one of whom had been slammed to the ground by a U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent. With a phone in one hand, Pretti used the other hand, in vain, to protect his eyes while being pepper sprayed. Knocked to the ground, Pretti was repeatedly smashed in the face with the spray can, pummeled by multiple agents, disarmed of his holstered legal firearm and then shot nine or 10 times.
Note the sequence. He was disarmed and then he was shot.
That’s why the killing is undeniably unjust and unjustified. Unjust because Pretti didn’t deserve to die, even if he’d been fully “obstructing” federal agents, death is not a just price for that. But he wasn’t obstructing an agent from deporting an immigrant. He was obstructing an agent from further assaulting a woman in the street.
The killing was unjustified because a gang of agents didn’t need to shoot Pretti after they disarmed him. If you want to argue that merely bringing a gun to any protest justifies being shot by law enforcement, even after being disarmed, you’re going to sound as politically dumb, hypocritical or authoritarian as a whole bunch of administration officials and GOP defenders undeniably did over the weekend.
I keep using that word — “undeniable.” Sadly, it really doesn’t mean what it used to mean. “Undeniable” describes something that is so obviously and clearly true that no one can refute or dispute it. With this administration, truth ain’t got nothing to do with anything.
In the immediate aftermath of Pretti’s killing, members of the Trump administration took to TV and social media to describe Pretti as a “domestic terrorist” and an “assassin.” The head of CBP, Gregory Bovino, said, “This looks like a situation where an individual wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.” Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem echoed the same talking points. Pretti’s motive, she claimed, was “to inflict maximum damage on individuals and to kill law enforcement” because he was a “domestic terrorist.” White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller asserted that Pretti was an “assassin” who tried to “murder federal agents.”
The administration is making all of this up. But that doesn’t necessarily mean they are lying. They just don’t care what the truth is.
In his seminal book “On Bulls—” (the actual title isn’t censored), philosopher Harry G. Frankfurt argues that lying implies a certain respect for, and knowledge of, the truth. “It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bulls— requires no such conviction.” What this administration does is worse than lying because they don’t care whether something is true or false, only whether it will be believed.
The Trump White House is a bulls— distribution hub, that connects via tubes, canals and sluices across the media landscape. Like some vast Rube Goldberg contraption, the guy on the giant hamster wheel powering the whole thing is a president who spent his life saying whatever he needed to say at any given moment to make a deal, get out of trouble, whatever.
Raised on “the power of positive thinking” and the prosperity gospel, Donald J. Trump has always believed he could conjure the reality he wants through sheer will and a relentless repetition of what he wants people to believe. He makes claims about what “they” are “saying” and recounts tales about what people have told him, some of which are surely made up while others are probably true but insincerely told, given that everyone knows the president believes all flattery he hears.
Trump sprayed bovine excrement throughout his first term, too. But he also had staff with hazmat suits, containment and cleanup gear at the ready.
Now, in his second term, everyone grabs a hose — but that’s not water in those tanks. Terminally online and obsessed with cable news narratives, this White House is full of people who have learned at the (kissed) feet of the master. The truth and lies are just different kinds of tools for the job that matters: constructing a narrative the president wants to hear, mostly about himself or for his benefit.
That’s why the administration’s Sunday show spinners are so bad at the job. The mission isn’t primarily to reassure, never mind to inform, the public, but to reassure the president that the public is being properly told how great the president is. Because they know he’s watching.
Trump is reportedly “reviewing” the policies that left Pretti dead in the street. That’s good. But Trump’s motive isn’t to prevent more needless deaths, just the needless deaths that don’t make him look good.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.
A portrait of Renee Good is placed at a memorial near the site where she was killed a week ago, on January 14, 2026 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Good was fatally shot by an immigration enforcement agent during an incident in south Minneapolis on January 7.
Thomas Paine famously wrote, "These are the times that try men's souls," when writing about the American Revolution. One could say that every week of Donald Trump's second administration has been such a time for much of the country.
One of the most important questions of the moment is: Was the ICE agent who shot Renee Good guilty of excessive use of force or murder, or was he acting in self-defense because Good was attempting to run him over, as claimed by the Trump administration? Local police and other Minneapolis authorities dispute the government's version of the events.
There are several videos of the incident, none of which support the government's version of what happened. As is frequently the case, Trump news/speak is fake news. Here is what the videos show:
This all happened in 20 seconds.
The videos make clear that Renee Good was not attempting to run the ICE agent over, but was attempting to get out of the scene. (If that had been the case, had she not turned to the right, he would have been run over.)
Department of Justice policy states that police can use a gun only when they feel their life or the lives of others are in imminent danger. They cannot use a gun merely to stop someone from fleeing the site.
Even though she had no intent to run him over, things happened so quickly that the agent will try to argue that he felt his life was in danger. But the fact that even when he took the first shot, the car was already passing him belies that assertion. And the fact that he kept shooting as the car moved past him and clearly was no longer in danger would argue that the shooting had nothing to do with self-defense and was just an excessive, improper use of deadly force.
Also, why didn't he just shoot the tires of the car to stop her? Why did he choose to shoot her at point-blank range 3 times? This was not some tyro with a rifle but a person with combat experience and years of experience with guns.
That the government is still claiming self-defense and not allowing the local police to be involved in the investigation is emblematic of the administration's practice of controlling and distorting facts. They have no interest in the truth; they just want a justification for their actions.
Most recently, Trump has indicated that the fact that Renee Good spoke disrespectfully to the ICE agents was grounds enough for the shooting. This runs counter to all established policy on the use of deadly force by police.
Regardless of your view of illegal immigrants, Trump's deportation policies, and the man himself, all Americans should be outraged by the excessive use of force by quasi-military personnel against American citizens as well as illegal immigrants and Trump's defense of their ignoring our "right to life and liberty." This is not an isolated incident but a pattern of disrespect that we have seen frequently in the aggressive actions of ICE, even towards a Congressman.
Americans should show that outrage through massive peaceful demonstrations. Yes, several thousand showed up at a protest in New York City, but the number should have been much more—hundreds of thousands.
This is not a minor matter. It is reminiscent of several of the abuses of power cited by the Founders in writing the Declaration of Independence:
These offenses are in addition to all the other things Trump has done that are destroying American democracy, the structure that the Founders designed to ensure that in the United States, no one person would ever be able to abuse his power as the British king had done. To prevent such abuse, including failing to respect the legislative process and making the judiciary dependent on his will, the Founders established America's distinctive balance of power with 3 independent branches: legislative, executive, and judicial—each responsible for reigning in any excesses of the others.
Every American who values the freedom and rights that our democracy has provided us should rise up and peacefully demonstrate. Not a voice should remain still. Jefferson believed strongly that we had to protect our rights: "The time to guard against corruption and tyranny, is before they shall have gotten hold of us."
Why are massive demonstrations important? First, they let you and others feel that your voice is being heard. This is of critical importance in a democracy. Second, it lets the silent majority of people who are either concerned or questioning about this issue see that there are massive numbers of fellow citizens who are concerned and are raising their voices.
Another thing people can do to increase engagement with this issue is to reach out to religious and other organizations in your community and encourage them to offer programs on this topic. Also, go to your local school board and encourage them to address this issue through school programs. Let your representatives in Congress know how you feel.
Finally, Trump was elected fairly by a majority of the American voters. But he has abused and expanded the power that the Constitution gives the President. In our system, the way to free ourselves from Donald Trump is through the ballot box and through our voices.
There are elections this November that will determine whether Republicans or Democrats control the House and the Senate. If Democrats regain control of Congress, that will restore the balance of power the Founders sought to ensure, as the current Republican-controlled Congress has almost entirely deferred to Trump's demands.
If we do not protect our rights, there is a distinct possibility, given the current political dynamic, that we will lose them.
Ronald L. Hirsch is a teacher, legal aid lawyer, survey researcher, nonprofit executive, consultant, composer, author, and volunteer. He is a graduate of Brown University and the University of Chicago Law School and the author of We Still Hold These Truths. Read more of his writing at www.PreservingAmericanValues.com
Retaliatory prosecutions and political score-settling mark a grave threat to the rule of law, constitutional rights, and democratic accountability.
The recent casual acknowledgement by the White House Chief of Staff that the President is engaged in prosecutorial “score settling” marks a dangerous departure from the rule-of-law norms that restrain executive power in a constitutional democracy. This admission that the State is using its legal authority to punish perceived enemies is antithetical to core Constitutional principles and the rule of law.
The American experiment was built on the rejection of personal rule and political revenge, replacing it with laws that bind even those who hold the highest offices. In 1776, Thomas Paine wrote, “For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other.” The essence of these words can be found in our Constitution that deliberately placed power in the hands of three co-equal branches of government–Legislative, Executive, and Judicial.
In the past year, however, the executive branch has asserted its power in ways that undermine the core founding principles of this country by weaponizing agencies and authorities throughout government to take actions based on personal vendettas, rather than the interests of the American people. The nation’s once exalted law enforcement agency, the Department of Justice, has diminished itself through its complicity, targeting individuals and institutions at the direction of the White House.
-On January 11, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell revealed that he is under criminal investigation in connection with the renovation of the Federal Reserve buildings. Powell called the threatened criminal indictment charges “pretexts” and “a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the President.” This provoked a rare rebuke from Senator Thom Tillis, who sits on the Senate Committee overseeing nominations for the Fed: “If there were any remaining doubt whether advisers within the Trump Administration are actively pushing to end the independence of the Federal Reserve, there should now be none. It is now the independence and credibility of the Department of Justice that are in question.”
-The administration has removed security clearances from numerous individuals against whom the President had grievances, including former US Presidents, CIA chiefs, and other officials. As of November 2025, 470 individuals and organizations had been subjected to some form of retribution.
-The Department of Justice has investigated and sought to prosecute former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James at the apparent direction of the President based on his desire to seek retribution against them.
-After Senator Mark Kelly and five other members of Congress posted a video reminding U.S. military members that they are obligated to not follow illegal orders, the President called their statements “seditious behavior punishable by death." The Pentagon escalated a military review of the Senator, and on Jan. 5, 2026, sent him a letter of censure, initiating the process of demoting him. The President has called for all those in the video to be “arrested and put on trial."
We know these actions reflect retribution because the White House has been explicit about personal motives. The President sent a direct message over social media to Attorney General Pam Bondi, instructing her to initiate actions against James Comey, Letitia James, and Senator Adam Schiff (Truth Social, Sept 20, 2025), stating: “…What about Comey, Adam ‘Shifty’ Schiff, Letitia??? They’re all guilty as hell… JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!” White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles confirmed this behavior in a Vanity Fair interview where she stated, “We have a loose agreement that the score settling will end before the first 90 days are over.”
Trust in our government requires a belief that it exercises its authority based on facts and the law, not on politics or revenge. Indeed, the framework of our entire form of government was designed to ensure that no one can direct government actions based on personal agendas. When the Department of Justice and other government agencies behave arbitrarily and launch vindictive investigations and prosecutions, we are all at risk of being wrongly punished.
Retaliatory prosecutions, such as those cited above, violate key elements of our Constitution, for example:
· The First Amendment by punishing speech and/or association.
· The Due Process clause, which was designed to ensure that the law is applied to everyone equally.
· Separation of Powers, if the investigation lacks a legitimate law enforcement purpose or is done in retribution or to coerce or undermine the role of a member of Congress.
It is a long-held principle in this country that our justice system cannot be used to advance a personal agenda. Unfair retaliatory actions place everyone’s rights and freedoms at risk – even people who have no connection to the target.
We must all speak up and explain the dangers of a weaponized government.
1. Remind people that the federal government works for them. The people have a right to know what the government is doing–and to make sure it is following the facts and not a government leader’s personal or political agenda. The government is not there to do one individual’s bidding, even if that individual was elected by the people.
2. Speak out when learning of government retaliation. Doing so reminds those in office that public power is not a personal weapon for revenge.
The greatest danger of retaliatory use of government power is not any single investigation or individual target, but the precedent it sets. When retaliation becomes normalized—when investigations, prosecutions, or administrative punishments are understood as tools for settling political or personal scores—it reshapes incentives throughout government in a way that is dangerous to all of us.
In particular, career officials learn that independence carries risk, dissent invites punishment, and loyalty to individuals matters more than fidelity to law. Over time, this corrodes public trust in the justice system itself, chills lawful speech and opposition, and weakens the institutional safeguards that protect everyone’s rights.
All of us all have a responsibility to speak out and demand that our leaders follow the Constitution and the law.
Lauren Stiller Rikleen, Susan Rubel, Amanda Cats-Baril, and Arabella Meyer are the leadership team for the Meeting the Moment initiative of Lawyers Defending American Democracy, an organization dedicated to galvanizing lawyers and other members of the public “to defend the rule of law in the face of an unprecedented threat to American Democracy.” Its work is not political or partisan.
U.S. President Donald Trump (R) speaks with NATO's Secretary-General Mark Rutte during a bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum (WEF) annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, on Jan. 21, 2026.
“We cannot live our lives or govern our countries based on social media posts.”
That’s what a European Union official, who was directly involved in negotiations between the U.S. and Europe over Greenland, said following President Trump’s announcement via Truth Social that we’ve “formed the framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland and, in fact, the entire Arctic Region.”
It’s been a bizarre start to the new year, with Trump ramping up his threats against the Danish territory — threats which included actual invasion — and any other NATO allies who sided with Greenland.
Trump’s post also announced invasion is off the table and he won’t be going ahead with the 10% tariffs he’d promised to levy on Denmark’s supporters on Feb. 1, more welcome news.
But still, European officials remain skeptical. “After the back and forth of the last few days,” Germany’s Vice Chancellor Lars Klingbeil said, “we should now wait and see what substantive agreements are reached between [NATO Secretary General Mark] Rutte and Mr. Trump. No matter what solution is now found for Greenland, everyone must understand that we cannot sit back, relax, and be satisfied.”
That lack of trust in America, and in particular the American president, is understandable, but deeply lamentable. When it comes to diplomacy, trust is a crucial currency, and to put it simply, we don’t have it.
Trump’s bombastic, reckless, and often dismissive rhetoric toward our allies would make anyone question our commitment, not to mention our moral compass. Whatever happens with Greenland in the coming hours, days, or weeks, Trump has — yet again — deeply damaged our relationships abroad and our standing in the world.
But here at home, the reaction among Republican lawmakers to Trump’s possibly premature Greenland news has been incredibly telling.
They are also relieved — relieved that this dumb ordeal may finally be coming to an end.
The last few weeks have put lawmakers in the unenviable position of having to answer whether they’d support a president who wanted to invade a sovereign territory that rightfully belonged to an ally.
They’ve also had to defend Trump’s utterly insane behavior, social media posts, and press conferences in which he seems truly deranged at times.
Consider what he texted the Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre, in part, earlier in the week:
“Dear Jonas: Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America….
I have done more for NATO than any other person since its founding, and now NATO should do something for the United States. The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland. Thank you!”
Now, I won’t go through all of Trump’s demonstrably false statements here, nor will I point out how puerile and small our president looks. But needless to say, if you’re a Republican lawmaker, this embarrassing display of ignorance and fragility wasn’t a thing you wanted to defend.
Republicans also know how unpopular — like, really unpopular — Trump’s Greenland folly has been. A new Reuters/IPSOS poll found that his push to acquire the territory is sitting at 40 points underwater with the American electorate. To put an even finer point on it, that’s two points worse than Trump’s approval on the Epstein files.
The quicker Trump gets off Greenland, the quicker Republicans can get back to selling their domestic agenda in a crucial election year. And they were all too happy to get in front of reporters to express their relief that he wasn’t, in fact, going to take Greenland by force.
“I don’t think that was ever his intent, and so I’m glad he clarified,” said Speaker Mike Johnson.
“Most of us think it was crazy, with a few exceptions,” said Rep. Don Bacon. “Most of us thought, behind shut doors, he should be bragging on the economy that’s growing at 4.3%, wages climbing faster than inflation for the first time in four or five years. But now we’re talking Greenland.”
Hopefully not for much longer. Whatever Trump walks away with, which could be a “deal” that has already existed — will pale in comparison to the damage he’s done to our global reputation. Mineral rights? More bases? We could have negotiated all of that like a normal nation — and ally — would. Instead, Trump chose chaos and lunacy. The relief overseas and here at home that this nonsense might finally be over tells you just how dumb it was in the first place.
S.E. Cupp is the host of "S.E. Cupp Unfiltered" on CNN.
