Do Trump’s Goals Justify His Words and Actions?

As co-publishers of The Fulcrum, it is time to clarify our mission in the context of what we are witnessing from the current Trump Administration.

The barrage of executive orders in the last few weeks has resulted in outrage by his political opponents. In many cases, the responses are justified. Still, at times, the responses ignore the fact that there might be some truth in what the Trump administration is saying and legitimate reasons for some actions they are taking.

Our challenge as a publication, dedicated to keeping our readers informed so we can repair our democracy and make it live and work in our everyday lives, is not to be overly reactive or partisan. At the same time, we must not ignore the dangers of the administration's degrading, hostile, and accusatory language and dangerous actions when they occur, while also acknowledging inappropriate responses when they occur.

Finding the proper balance is a difficult task indeed.

The Fulcrum must be mindful of the fact that Trump won a plurality of the vote and currently has a majority approval rating. If we are to serve our mission of engaging a broad spectrum of citizens from the left, right, and center in the political process, all working together to face tough challenges facing our nation, we must be mindful of this fact.

We believe it is our obligation to acknowledge that a varying percentage of the administration's statements and actions have merit and are based on truth while, at the same time, not normalizing the language Trump uses or understating the devastating impact many of his executive orders or other actions are having on millions of people in the United States and around the world.

On his first day in office, January 20, 2025, Trump signed an executive order initiating a 90-day pause on all U.S. foreign development assistance to assess the efficiency and alignment of these programs with U.S. foreign policy. The order also called for reviews of each foreign assistance program to determine whether to continue, modify, or cease them.

Some notable statements by Musk and Trump followed the executive order. Musk stated on social media that "USAID is a criminal organization."Trump echoed Musk’s sentiments by saying, "The agency is run by a bunch of radical lunatics."

It is easy to be reactive to statements like this. It is, perhaps, even imperative that The Fulcrum calls out such dangerous language used by Trump and Musk and do the same should members of Congress from the other party make similar comments.

However, strongly admonishing abhorrent words or actions while, at the same time, acknowledging some degree of truth in the underlying action are not mutually exclusive. Finding where that truth is remains one of our key objectives.

In the case of USAID, The Fulcrum acknowledges the need to engage in a thoughtful and analytical process, leading to the elimination of waste, fraud, and abuse that exists in USAID and frankly in all organizations—governmental and nongovernmental. That is far different from the slash-and-burn approach underway. Acknowledging the need to reform the government does not mean always condoning the methods being used to do so; that ability to offer nuanced commentary is what we pride ourselves on.

One way of accomplishing this is to call attention to the logical fallacies employed by Trump. Hyperbole is one of the Trump administration's favorite logical fallacies. This approach might best be served by using an approach that Socrates developed to respond to logical fallacies that we now call the Socratic Method. In its simple form, one can ask questions in an effort to refute a statement or hypothesis that allows individuals with opposing opinions to build upon those differences rather than becoming further separated by them.

Socrates wisely recognized that human nature needed to be nudged away from its natural inclination to focus on who's right and wrong or who wins and who loses. Instead, he proposed that seeking to better understand the thoughts, beliefs, and viewpoints that differ from our own can give rise to new insights, greater awareness, and generate, otherwise, undetected solutions and remedies to stalemated problems and issues.

Citizens don't have to be experts, like Socrates, to recognize some of the deplorable techniques—currently used by many politicians of both parties—within posturing, filled with twisted facts and vitriolic disdain, that solely seeks to win our trust. As these behaviors unfold, The Fulcrum will not only report on these actions but, most importantly, strive to find solutions.

One reason Americans so easily fall prey to such deceptive political ploys is that lodged within our human nature is a tendency to embrace information that supports our beliefs and to ignore or distort evidence contrary to our beliefs. Although understandable, this tendency can blind us from the facts and the truth. We will not be blinded.

And so, as we embark on a new administration, The Fulcrum will remain vigilant. We will attempt to understand the tactics of debate and expect more from ourselves, our politicians, and our nation.

In the coming weeks and months, we will be specifically attentive to the many logical fallacies used by politicians. At this juncture, we are focused on the Trump administration because they are the administration in power. However, when those on the left employ the same logical fallacies (not to mention despicable language) to manipulate public opinion and divert attention from substantive issues, we will report on that as well. We also understand that spotlighting illegal and unconstitutional actions is a mandate for each of us and should rise above partisanship.

While our desire is to be fair and accurate, we must be mindful of not falling into the moral equivalency trap. When equally bad or good words or actions are presented as being equally bad or good, this can be potentially dangerous. As an example, if a Fulcrum news story implies that both protestors and terrorists are harmful and the comparison fails to acknowledge that while vandalism is illegal and disruptive, it is not morally or ethically equivalent to causing mass casualties through a terrorist attack, we are falling into the moral equivalency trap. It is essential that we are mindful of falling into this trap as we try to be balanced by inadvertently downplaying or exaggerating the seriousness of different events.

While our coverage must be balanced, the extent of our coverage of an event will take into account the significance and impact of actions, and the impact these actions are having on people, communities, and systems. Simply stated, not all sides deserve equal coverage.

The Fulcrum is partisan about one thing: “Democracy.“

The Fulcrum will not be distracted.

David Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.