Andrew Yang joins this episode of Toppling the Duopoly. Yang is a business leader, former Democratic presidential candidate, a former Democratic mayoral candidate in New York City, and has been featured as a commentator on national media outlets. Now, Yang has founded the Forward Party with a focus on bringing systemic democracy reform to the U.S. political process that will give control back to voters.
President Donald Trump speaks during an arrival ceremony on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, D.C., on April 28, 2026.
When the history books write about Donald Trump, they’ll have a lot to say — little of it positive, I’d be willing to wager.
His presidencies have been marked by rank incompetence, unprecedented greed and self-dealing, naked corruption, ethical, legal and moral breaches and, as we repeatedly see, a rise in political division and anger. From impeachments to an insurrection to who-knows-what is still to come, the era of Trump has hardly been worthy of admiration.
But don’t tell that to his loyal supporters, for whom no one stands in higher esteem, despite Trump’s obvious shortcomings. Where we see an embarrassment, they see the fulfilment of a promise. Where we find horror, they find jubilation. We are truly living in two different Americas.
It’s remarkable that Trump can so clearly be two opposing things depending on whom you ask, and that stark contrast is often revealed in moments where he’s waging war on perceived enemies.
This week, Trump’s Justice Department, under the leadership of Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, announced it had indicted former FBI Director James Comey over an Instagram post in which Comey had photographed seashells on a beach to spell out “86 47.”
To be clear, “86” is common restaurant jargon to “nix” a menu item, and “47” refers to Trump. Blanche’s DOJ is claiming that this amounted to a threat of violence.
If that sounds silly, it’s because it is. But Trump’s got it out for Comey, and he tried this once before. This indictment, like the last one, isn’t likely to result in a prosecution.
But the indictment was met with predictable praise from MAGA loyalists, for whom Trump’s revenge campaigns are a titillating projection of his strength and a righteous use of presidential power.
For the rest of us, they are just another humiliation for Trump and the country — a weaponized and compromised DOJ that’s already seen one AG fired for failing to throw enough Trump opponents in prison, and a president who is pathologically consumed with old and irrelevant grudges.
Trump fans love it when he’s playing the bully and swinging at the people he’s told them to hate, from Jimmy Kimmel to Sen. Mark Kelly to New York Attorney General Letitia James.
For all of his efforts at projecting strength, Trump never looks weaker than in these moments, when he’s pursuing these personal vendettas — and losing.
Just in the past year, Trump’s DOJ has lost numerous high-profile cases it sought to use to appease the president’s bloodlust.
It failed to get an indictment against six Democratic lawmakers, including Kelly, over a video they released regarding illegal orders.
Grand juries rejected cases against protesters in Washington and elsewhere, including trying to charge a man with felony assault for throwing a sandwich at an officer.
Attempts to prosecute James, former CIA Director John Brennan, and Fed Chair Jerome Powell have thus far failed.
Trump has also failed to successfully sue a number of opponents, from Hillary Clinton to the DNC, the New York Times to CNN.
Judges have overruled his attempts at silencing news outlets, blocking a Pentagon policy limiting reporter access, ordering the White House to lift restrictions on the AP after Trump had banned the news agency for refusing to use the term “Gulf of America,” and blocking an executive order to cut funding for NPR and PBS.
Trump has lost so many of these petty fights, it’s hard to imagine why he keeps going back to the trough, only to suffer more humiliating losses.
And yet somehow, his fans don’t read these abject failures the same way the rest of us do. Where we see impotence and incompetence, they still see power and strength.
I can’t make it make sense, but I’m fairly confident that the history books, at least, will get it right.
S.E. Cupp is the host of "S.E. Cupp Unfiltered" on CNN.
Agents draw their guns after loud bangs were heard during the White House Correspondents' dinner at the Washington Hilton in Washington, D.C., on April 25, 2026. President Trump is attending the annual gala of the political press for the first time while in office.
A heavily armed California man was caught trying to storm the White House correspondents’ dinner Saturday with the apparent intent to kill the president.
It didn’t take long for Washington to start arguing. Democrats denounce violent rhetoric from the right, but the alleged assailant seemed to be inspired by his own rhetoric. President Trump, after initially offering some unifying remarks about defending free speech, soon started accusing the press of encouraging violence against him. Critics pounced on the hypocrisy.
The argument about hypocrisy isn’t about mere inconsistency. The point of the accusation is to say that condemnations of violence are insincere. “Your team says it’s against violence” or “your side says my side encourages violence” but just look at what your language inspired!
The hypocrisy is bipartisan.
Indeed, for two decades now, it seems that whenever political violence erupts, there’s a moment where partisans wait to learn the motives of the perpetrator so they can start blaming the other side for inciting it. Sometimes they don’t even wait. Jared Loughner, the man who shot former Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed several others, was instantaneously labeled an agent of the tea parties and Sarah Palin. The truth is he was such a paranoid schizophrenic, a court found him incompetent to stand trial.
I don’t have the space to run through the dozens of examples — the congressional baseball shooting, the Charleston AME church slaughter, the El Paso Walmart massacre, the recent murder of Minnesota lawmakers, the Jan. 6 riot or the failed attack Saturday night. But in the wake of these bloody crimes, partisans of left and the right will scour the killer’s social media or read their “manifestos” and place the blame on the rhetoric of the team closest to the assailant’s ideology.
Now, my point isn’t to say that blaming the rhetoric of nonviolent people for the crimes of violent people is wrong. It is wrong, of course, particularly as a matter of law. If I quote Shakespeare and write, “Let’s kill all the lawyers,” I am not responsible for someone who actually shoots a lawyer (nor is the Bard). But that doesn’t mean violent, extremist rhetoric is laudable, healthy or blameless for the sorry state of American politics or society or that it never plays a role in inspiring wrongdoing.
However such rhetoric might encourage violence, it certainly encourages the sense that something is broken in American life. More specifically, it fuels the idea that our political opponents are existential enemies.
“Outgroup homogeneity” is the term social psychologists use to describe the very human tendency to think the groups you belong to are diverse and complex, but the groups you don’t belong to aren’t. A non-Asian person might think all Asians are alike, but for Asians the differences between — or among! — Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Indian people are both obvious and significant.
American politics right now are almost defined by outgroup homogeneity. Many Democrats and progressives think all Republicans and conservatives are alike, and vice versa. That would be bad enough, but the problem is compounded by the fact that each side tends to think the consensus on the other side is defined by their worst actors and spokespeople. This is sometimes called “nutpicking.” You find the most extreme person on the other side and hold them up as representative of all Democrats or Republicans.
Partisan media amplifies this dynamic at scale. Pew finds that Republicans (who watch Fox News) are more familiar with the term “critical race theory” than Democrats, the supposed devotees of it. Democrats recognize the term “Christian nationalist” more than supposedly Christian nationalist Republicans do.
Consider the recent debates over Hasan Piker and Nick Fuentes, both prominent social media influencers, one far left the other far right, who say grotesque, indefensible and stupid things. The arguments within the two coalitions are not over whether they should be spokesmen for their respective sides, but whether their “voices” (and fans) should be welcome inside the broader Democratic or Republican tents. Few accommodationists endorse the worst rhetoric from Piker or Fuentes, but they oppose “purity tests.”
On the merits, I think both should be shunned and condemned. But even if the question is purely a political one, they should still be ostracized. Why? Because people outside the respective coalitions will — however fairly or unfairly — hold up the extremists on the fringe as representative of the whole. The only way for either party to prove it opposes extremism to people outside the tent is by opposing it inside their own tents first. Otherwise, their hypocrisy will continue to define them.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.
Congress and the Trump administration are locked in an escalating fight over presidential war powers as President Donald Trump continues military action against Iran without congressional authorization, prompting renewed debate over the limits of executive authority.
Julie Roland, a ten-year Navy veteran and frequent contributor to The Fulcrum, joined Executive Editor Hugo Balta on this month's edition of The Fulcrum Roundtable, where she expressed deep concerns regarding the Trump administration’s impact on military nonpartisanship and the rights of service members.A former helicopter pilot and lieutenant commander, Roland has used her weekly column to highlight what she describes as a systemic attempt to stifle dissent within the armed forces.
- YouTube youtu.be
"If you are given an order that's unconstitutional or that you believe to be illegal, the rules are stated as that you must in fact disobey that order," she said. Roland noted that this duty becomes an "impossible burden" for young recruits who may lack the legal background to identify unconstitutional commands in high-pressure situations.
Roland was particularly critical of Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, accusing him of using "violent rhetoric" that does not represent the broader military culture. She argued that Hegseth and the President have actively worked to exclude the media to avoid accountability.
"I think there's enough evidence to suggest that between Secretary Hegseth and Trump, there's been an active effort to push the media out in order to reduce transparency and accountability of what the military is doing," she stated.The interview also touched upon the "unprecedented" deployment of troops to American cities like Los Angeles and Minneapolis. Roland argued these actions delegitimize public trust by making the military appear as a "political arm" of the Trump administration.
This perceived politicization, combined with low public confidence, poses a long-term national security risk by damaging recruitment and retention. Roland warned that soldiers who joined to defend the nation may become "disenchanted" when sent to deploy in American neighborhoods."The press are doing their jobs to try to have transparency... while the Pentagon seems to be, at least Secretary Hegseth seems to be, deliberately trying to not let us know exactly what's going on," she concluded.Hugo Balta is the executive editor of The Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network
President Donald Trump speaks to members of the press aboard Air Force One on April 17, 2026, just prior to landing at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland.
If supporters of Donald Trump were to be studied — and I very much expect they will be for years and years to come — academics may be hard-pressed to find the connective tissue that unites them all together.
It’s clear they’re not with Trump for his ideology — he doesn’t really have one, not that hews to ideas espoused by the traditional political parties at least. His policies have been all over the map, and even within his own presidencies he’s reversed them substantively or abandoned them outright.
It’s not because he’s done anything heroic or admirable, other than get very, very rich using legally and ethically questionable practices — admirable, perhaps, to some.
And it’s not because he’s done anything particularly great for them. He’s broken most of his promises, and by nearly any metric, he’s made the lives of his own voters demonstrably worse.
But they do love him, in spite of all of this. They love what he represents, what he projects back to them, a version of America they miss, even though he cannot deliver it. And they’ve decided to believe that he truly cares about them, even though he’s taken their money to line his own pockets, he’s endangered their lives by pushing baseless conspiracy theories, and he’s threatening to send their children to another endless war.
The thing that has united Trump supporters, if anything, has been their enduring faith in HIM.
But for how much longer?
Thanks largely to Iran, deportations, and the economy, Trump’s approval is at a second-term low, according to a trio of new polls out this week, which show him at just 33% to 36%.
And we’re starting to see one-time loyalists do something the MAGA base has never really done before: Question him.
They’re questioning Trump on his policies. From his decision to go to war with Iran to the efficacy of his tariffs, MAGA media influencers are vocalizing their concerns about his judgment in ways we haven’t heard before. From a crowd that even managed to justify an insurrection against the U.S. Capitol, this sudden skepticism is interesting.
They’re questioning his morality. The Epstein files have rankled Trump supporters in a way that little else has, and his obvious efforts to cover them up have them raising questions about his involvement and what he knew. Trump’s infidelity, his payoffs to porn stars, the “Access Hollywood” tape, the sexual abuse adjudication — none of that managed to turn MAGA voters off the way Epstein has.
They’re questioning his sanity and competence. In the wake of Trump’s deranged threats to end Iranian civilization, and his bonkers attacks on the first American pope and Catholics writ large, folks like Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly and Marjorie Taylor Greene are openly questioning his mental acuity and fitness for office. They didn’t do this during his impeachments, after his 34 convictions for fraud, or when his deportation goon squad killed two American protesters.
And now, they’re questioning his veracity. Several former Trump supporters have come out to question whether the assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania, in 2024 was staged or is being covered up in some way. That’s questioning whether Trump can be believed, something no MAGA star dared to do just months ago.
Whatever may be motivating these influential one-time MAGA devotees to break ranks, they could very easily give MAGA voters permission to do something they’ve not felt they could do before — question their faith in Trump’s policies, his moral compass, his sanity, and his believability.
And if they start doing that, well, I’m not sure what’s left for them to buy into anymore.
S.E. Cupp is the host of "S.E. Cupp Unfiltered" on CNN.
