Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

This is Trumpism

This is Trumpism

WASHINGTON, DC - MARCH 31: U.S. President Donald Trump gestures while speaking during an executive order signing event in the Oval Office of the White House.

(Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

It's high time commentators stopped trying to shoehorn the American polity into a paradigm that doesn't fit. Donald Trump's brand of government is as new and unique as it is volatile and disturbing. Sometimes, history neither repeats nor rhymes. Sometimes, a whole new species bursts onto the scene.

What we're seeing today with Trump isn't dictatorship. Dictators control their countries. They don't rely on the opposition party to pass budgets; they dictate where money is spent. They don't get bludgeoned every hour in the press; they dominate the media. And they don't have their key initiatives stymied in the courts; they control the judiciary.


Nor is this Nazism. Nazis don't make Nazi salutes at rallies and then try (with mixed success) to downsize the government. Nazis make Nazi salutes at rallies and then go kill a bunch of innocent people. Nazis, moreover, don't just slap tariffs on their neighbors. Nazis invade their neighbors.

This isn't fascism, either. Fascists enforce a coherent vision of government through a murderous, totalitarian regime. They don't flail around pursuing incoherent and contradictory policies that get blocked as frequently as they get implemented.

Sure, there are similarities between Trump’s presidency and these historical forms of government. Trump's rhetoric, for example, is often lifted from the lips of history's worst tyrants. His abuses of executive power, moreover, often resemble certain dictatorial techniques. But, overall, these political pegs don't fit into the American hole. Having similarities with something is different from being the same thing. Both the mouse and the elephant have four legs and a tail.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

No, what we have in America today is different. It's new. It’s unprecedented. What we have in America today is Trumpism.

There are four defining elements of Trumpism. First, Donald Trump is the sitting president and dominates the Republican Party. His cabinet includes people with varied pedigrees and ideologies who share one common trait: slavish loyalty to Trump. The same Trump-first, person-over-party ethos pervades Republicans in both houses of Congress.

Second, several essential pillars of American democracy no longer function. For example, Trump's executive branch doesn't respect legal precedents or traditions in its daily workings. Trump ignores rules regarding government ethics, such as avoiding conflicts of interest. An impulsive and profiteering businessman, he naturally gravitates toward, instead of away from, these conflicts. He also ignores other long-held norms and legal requirements governing executive action. Under Article 2, Section 3 of the United States Constitution, the president must “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Yet Trump and Elon Musk have brazenly confiscated valid federal funding to serve their political goals and settle personal scores.

Third, other essential pillars of American democracy do continue to function. As Trump's recent deal with Democratic senator Chuck Schumer illustrated, a majority of Congress is still required to pass a budget. The judiciary still operates independently from and consistently rules against the president. State and local governments still control vast portions of America's legal and political systems. A diverse and free press still vociferously criticizes the president every minute of every day.

So we find ourselves today charting new territory as a nation. Some parts of our democracy still work, some don't, and some of our fears have been realized. We are not under the yoke of a fascist dictator. We are, rather, neck-deep in the dysfunctional scramble of a constitutionally illiterate and shameless bully.

Which brings us to the fourth and final element of Trumpism: unpredictability reigns. Will Trump start systematically violating court orders? Will he and Musk illicitly unwind foundational programs like Social Security? Will Republicans keep both chambers of Congress in 2026? Will Trump try to stay in office after the next presidential election?

These are big open questions. And we shouldn't understate the predicament we’re in. But we also shouldn't confuse where things stand or make them worse than they are. This isn't dictatorship, nazism, fascism, or any other familiar political paradigm. This is something different. This is something new. This is something as odd, as unique, and as troubling as the man who gives it its name. This is Trumpism.

William Cooper is the author of How America Works … And Why It Doesn’t

Read More

Trump’s Gambit: Trade Tariff Relief For a TikTok Sale

TikTok icon on a phone.

Getty Images, 5./15 WEST

Trump’s Gambit: Trade Tariff Relief For a TikTok Sale

You know things aren’t going well in the negotiations for the U.S. operations of TikTok when President Trump has to bribe the Chinese government with billions in tariff relief.

But that’s exactly what was reported out of the White House. President Trump is willing to give the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) billions in tariff relief if they pressured TikTok to sell its U.S. operations before the April 5th deadline.

Keep ReadingShow less
Defining the Democracy Movement: Richard Young
- YouTube

Defining the Democracy Movement: Richard Young

The Fulcrum presents The Path Forward: Defining the Democracy Reform Movement. Scott Warren's weekly interviews engage diverse thought leaders to elevate the conversation about building a thriving and healthy democratic republic that fulfills its potential as a national social and political game-changer. This series is the start of focused collaborations and dialogue led by The Bridge Alliance and The Fulcrum teams to help the movement find a path forward.

The most recent interview of this series took place with Richard Young, the Executive Director of CivicLex, a nonprofit organization strengthening civic health in Lexington, Kentucky. In addition to leading important work in Lexington, Richard has become an evangelist for the importance of place-based democracy work, which has indisputably gained interest and attention following the 2024 general election.

Keep ReadingShow less
Court Decision on Closed Primaries Marks New Chapter in Fight for Independents
A gavel and a scale of justice.
Getty Images, Witoon Pongsit

Court Decision on Closed Primaries Marks New Chapter in Fight for Independents

Litigation is often seen as a zero-sum game of wins and losses. In that lens, a recent 11th Circuit decision that upholds Florida’s closed primary system has been declared another win for political parties and closed primaries. But it’s the wrong framing. Dozens of losses in court have often preceded landmark court rulings on civil rights. Asking a court to upend decades of support for a major aspect of our election system is rarely achieved in a single case. The more important question is whether any case advanced the legal debate. There is no doubt that Michael J. Polelle v. Florida Secretary of State is an important step forward in the legal dismantling of closed primaries.

Polelle is an independent voter from Sarasota. The Republican primary has determined who gets elected from Sarasota for more than fifty years. As an independent, Mr. Polelle was faced with the same choice that millions of independents face in closed primary states—join a party whose platform you don’t support in order to vote in a state-funded election or lose any meaningful opportunity to impact who represents you. Mr. Polelle chose a third option—he challenged the system in court.

Keep ReadingShow less
Unit Cohesion is a Pretext for Exclusion

The transgender flag on a military uniform.

Getty Images, Cunaplus_M.Faba

Unit Cohesion is a Pretext for Exclusion

In the annals of military history, the desire for uniformity has often been wielded as a sword against inclusion. This tendency resurfaced dramatically when President Donald Trump, shortly after taking office, signed an executive order, facially rooted in concerns about unit cohesion, that banned transgender individuals from serving in the armed forces. It was challenged and blocked by a federal judge on March 18, who described the ban as “soaked in animus and dripping with pretext.” On March 27, a second judge issued an injunction on the ban, calling it “unsupported, dramatic and facially unfair exclusionary policy” (the Trump administration asked the 9th Circuit to stay the ruling; they were denied on April 1). It turns out that the argument that introducing any minority into military ranks would disrupt unit cohesion is practically a cliché, with similar claims having been made against integrating black men, women, and then openly gay service members. It is a tale as old as time. But that’s just it–it’s just a tale. Don’t believe it.

The military top brass have, at times, insisted that the integration of minority groups would undermine the effectiveness of our armed forces, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Air Force General Henry Arnold wrote in 1941 that “the use of women pilots serves no military purpose,” only to have “nothing but praise” for them by 1944, after having served with them. Regarding integrating women into combat roles in 1993, Congress members argued that “although logical, such a policy would [erode] the civilizing notion that men should protect…women.” Of course, they also offered the even more convenient cover story that integration would be “disruptive to unit cohesion.” Similarly, although many claimed that “letting gays serve openly would ruin [unit cohesion],” the resistance was found to be “based on nothing” except “our own prejudices and . . . fears.” Dozens of studies conducted by the U.S. military and 25 other nations confirmed the presence of gay soldiers had no impact on unit cohesion. These results were ignored in “the service of an ideology equating heterosexuality with bravery and patriotism.” Unit cohesion is a simple—though thinly veiled—rationale.

Keep ReadingShow less