Is our Constitution in crisis? Or did it create one? In this episode of Deconstructed from IVN, Jeanne Sheehan Zaino, Ph.D., joins T.J. O'Hara to discuss the structural challenges of the Constitution that have contributed to the growing political stalemate in our Nation's capital. Dr. Sheehan Zaino is a Professor of Political Science and International Studies at Iona College and a regular contributor to Bloomberg Television and Radio.
In an era increasingly defined by transactional politics, the rhetoric of ultimatum has become one of President Donald Trump's favorite tools. When he declared to pharmaceutical giants on August 1st, "We will deploy every tool in our arsenal" should they fail to lower drug prices, it echoed a familiar pattern of the use of "demand" to shift from negotiation to confrontation. Trump's all-too-familiar pattern of prescribing with deadlines, threats of tariffs or sanctions, and appeals to fairness or national pride.
In his letter to 17 major drug manufacturers, Trump demanded that drug manufacturers slash prices to match "most favored nation" levels—the lowest rates offered in other developed countries. He emphasized that Americans are "demanding lower drug prices and they need them today." His language, though cloaked in populist concern, carried a veiled threat:
"If you refuse to step up, we will deploy every tool in our arsenal to protect American families from continued abusive drug pricing practices."
The appeal of ultimatums lies in their appeal to decisiveness. They communicate strength, clarity, and dominance, all qualities celebrated within MAGA circles. Yet beneath this surface, such rhetoric undermines the democratic principles of deliberation, transparency, and shared ownership of public outcomes.
It undermines the essence of Democracy.
While Trump's base sees this posture as long-overdue boldness, his approval ratings tell a different story. As of late July, his overall approval ranges from 40% to 46%, with disapproval between 51% and 57%, yielding a net deficit of -5 to -16 points. Among independents, support has declined sharply, falling to 29% in some polls.
This erosion reflects more than policy disagreement. It's a response to a style of leadership that conflates dissent with disloyalty.
Ultimatums are rarely isolated policy moves but are part of a larger narrative architecture that casts disagreement not as democratic discourse but as betrayal. Trump's language routinely escalates from "I demand" to "They are bad people," forging a moral frame in which you're either with him or against America.
This rhetorical strategy centralizes power and bypasses accountability. Legislative bargaining becomes irrelevant when negotiation is replaced by coercion.
When Trump recasts the opposition not merely as being obstructionists or critics but as "radical left lunatics," "sick people," or worse, this justifies almost any actions needed to rid our nation of this threat.
In his first six months in office, Trump has used the presidency to target perceived enemies that include many government officials, student protesters, and, of course, journalists. This demonization, combined with threats to use domestic military force, is a dangerous precedent in a free society.
A look back at just one week in April gives us a glimpse into the extent of Trump's actions against perceived enemies. In early April, Trump ordered criminal probes into two former Trump administration officials, saying one was "guilty of treason." On the same day, he signed an order targeting a law firm for alleged "election misconduct." The very next day, Trump's former personal attorney announced criminal investigations into the state's Democratic governor and attorney general over immigration policies. And the following day, the administration sent a series of demands to Harvard University, which included an end to diversity programs and audits to ensure the implementation of this policy.
The delegitimizing of opposition isn't just dangerous, it's corrosive. Pluralism is the lifeblood of democratic governance, and the steady labeling of dissenters as enemies that includes real punitive action undermines the rule of law. The abundance of ICE arrests, criminal investigations, and contract bans goes on and on.
These unprecedented and extraordinary measures are justified not by evidence, but by moral absolutism, a worldview in which Trump's perceived truths are universal, incontestable, and self-justifying. In its extreme form, this moral absolutism can rationalize deception if the lie serves "the cause."
These actions aren't the populism that many of his supporters desire. It's a hollowing out of democratic norms beneath the banner of moral clarity.
The language of ultimatums and demands has real consequences.
While ultimatums offer the illusion of courage, this is not the leadership America needs. The real leadership in a vibrant democracy requires an invitation to complexity and the messy work of consensus. When leaders demand submission and frame disagreement as defiance, they fracture civic dialogue and undermine the fabric of what makes America great.
David Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
"Scott Turner is a brilliant case study for how ambition causes politicians to accept feeble attempts to reason away their beliefs or ethics..." writes Luke Harris.
Scott Turner was a Texas House Representative, now serving in the Trump Administration as the Secretary of U.S. Housing & Urban Development (HUD). In the Texas House, he talked about “being the best we can,” and espoused high standards for himself and his colleagues; however, in his current position, he has voiced no complaints or objections against the administration or the Republican Party. Perhaps for less cynical reasons than power itself, but to pursue his policies on housing and healthcare. Turner is a brilliant case study for how ambition causes politicians to accept feeble attempts to reason away their beliefs or ethics, always for something greater, something they can achieve with one more step. That “one more step” toward completely surrendering their integrity, confounding their ethical clarity, and adopting whatever means meet their ends.
During a keynote address in 2014, he spoke of the duty to break the status quo, Democrat or Republican, he said, “We need servant leaders…. People who live by conviction and principle, not by the waves of the sea of what’s popular today.” He shared his experience growing up in a poor home, and his father working two jobs. At his confirmation, he talked empathetically about the homelessness crisis and how his family took in his uncle, providing him with the services he needed. Trump has made comments expressing disdain for the homeless; he said these people were hurting the “prestige” of major cities, and many homeless people might prefer their situation.
An NBC affiliate network reported that 1 in 4 low-income households eligible for HUD rental assistance receive benefits. Turner is championing time limits, which means taking away benefits from more low-income households still unable to afford the cost of living. Trump has further plans to remove people from homeless encampments and place them in large camps or tent-cities, where they will be mandated to receive mental health or addiction treatment.
Seemingly in conflict with his views on homelessness and background, these policies are consistent with his previous stances representing Texas, for example, restricting welfare, requiring drug testing for unemployment benefits, voting against free-lunch programs in Texas schools, and opposing the Affordable Care Act.
He defined his career as a Texas Representative as an uncompromising advocate for transparency, leading extensive investigations into the conduct of his colleagues, and voting on policies to increase accountability. For example, he voted for HB 1690, which authorized rangers to investigate misconduct of an official or public administration and refer cases to the State Attorney General. He has parted ways with these values, perhaps to advocate for his conservative policies on social programs such as welfare and housing subsidies. However, compromising his fight against improper leadership or self-interested governance—accepting the numerous examples of corruption and secrecy—to achieve an agenda or implement a policy, is not leading on principle or conviction.
The Epstein scandal is a recent example of something that clearly runs against Turner’s previous views on government transparency and accountability. The footage and DOJ reports are inconsistent, and the Administration, DOJ, and FBI have refused to comment. For example, the files obtained by the AP provide a Suicide Timeline; at 6:33 a.m., staff found Epstein unresponsive, and at 6:45 a.m., EMS arrived. DOJ released raw footage from the hallway camera. According to the FBI, anyone entering the cell would have been visible on that camera, but the footage shows no one entering his cell around the provided timeline.
More concerningly, Pam Bondi, Trump’s Attorney General, has directly undermined the investigation into the Epstein files, ordering thousands of FBI agents to redact files. Bondi allegedly pressured the FBI to recruit 1,000 personnel to review 100,000 files relating to Jefferey Epstein and “flag” any that mentioned Donald Trump.
It would not be an exaggeration to compare the redaction of the Epstein files to the shredding of papers or deletion of tapes in the Watergate Scandal. Furthermore, his treatment of the press, on the Epstein Scandal and throughout his two terms, displays a hostility not seen since Nixon’s “Enemy List”: revoking CNN reporter Jim Acosta’s press pass, restricting AP reporters’ access to White House events, ending funding for public broadcast stations, suing 60 Minutes, recently launching a $22 billion suit against The Wall Street Journal, and attacking reporters for “fake news” or calling journalists “nasty.”
Turner accepts the status quo—having to keep silent, among many things he raised his voice against in the past, to maintain his position, to cause change, or to hold power. This is perfectly exhibited in the current situation with Trump’s attempts to suppress the Epstein situation and his general attitude towards the press; Much less, in the past, provoked Turner to denounce his colleagues for a lack of transparency. The Turner case is a more nuanced example of how politics and principle, strategy and idealism, are in constant struggle. Voters need to check the ambitions of politicians, whether they drive improper conduct or complicity through power-seeking or good-faith intentions to pursue their policy goals.
Luke Harris is an op-ed author who writes about the US, UK, and international politics, policy, and culture. He has been published in outlets like the North American Anglican and the Conservative Woman.
US Capitol Building, Washington, D.C.
For a president who likes command and control, Donald Trump certainly says “I don’t know” a lot when asked questions about what is going on in the federal government he supposedly leads. His latest “I don’t know” came on July 22 in response to a reporter’s question about whether he “support(ed) the DOJ seeking an interview with Ghislaine Maxwell,” the former girlfriend of the notorious Jeffrey Epstein.
“I don’t know anything about it. They’re gonna what? Meet her?” said Trump. Trying to help out, the befuddled president, the reporter explained, “The deputy attorney general has reached out to Ghislaine Maxwell’s attorney, asking for an interview.”
Trump repeated, “Yeah, I don’t know about it, but I think it would be something—sounds appropriate to do, yeah.” Asked whether Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche should conduct the interview, the president again confessed his ignorance. “He’s a very talented person, he’s very smart. I didn’t know he was going to do it, I don’t follow it too much, it’s sort of a witch hunt.”
Before examining some of Trump’s other “I don’t knows,” and what they tell us about whether the president is really running the government, let’s recall the many occasions on which he accused former President Joe Biden of not being in charge.
For example, in June, Trump said of Biden, "He didn't have much of an idea what was going on. He shouldn't be ... I mean, essentially, whoever used the autopen was the president. And that is wrong. It's illegal, it's so bad, and then it's so disrespectful to our country," Trump said.
As ABC News reports, “Shortly after Trump directed the Justice Department to investigate the circumstances surrounding Biden's supposed execution of numerous executive actions during his final years in office."
In June 2024, at the time Biden dropped out of the presidential race, Trump said, “All those around him, including his Doctor and the Media, knew that he wasn’t capable of being President, and he wasn’t.”
And in March of that year, Trump offered this assessment of his predecessor. “He has no clue, like with the documents hoax. How about that? He’s not competent to stand trial, but he’s allowed to be the president.”
No clue? For a president who so frequently says he doesn’t know about things the government is doing, no clue might be an apt description.
Recall that during the 2024 campaign, “I don’t know anything about it” was his standard answer when he was asked about Project 2025. On one occasion, he explained, "I know nothing about Project 2025. I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they're saying, and some of the things they're saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal. Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them."
"I don't know anything about it. I don't want to know anything about it," could have been his campaign slogan.
But the “I don’t knows” did not end when the campaign ended and Trump began his second term.
In May, NBC’s Kristen Welker asked the president whether people subject to deportation had a constitutionally protected right to due process of law. Trump’s reply had a familiar ring to it. “I don’t know. I’m not, I’m not a lawyer. I don’t know,” he said.
Welker pressed the question, “Do you need to uphold the Constitution of the United States as president?” “I don’t know,” Trump replied. “I have to respond by saying, again, I have brilliant lawyers that work for me, and they are going to obviously follow what the Supreme Court said.”
The president simply doesn’t understand his legal obligations. That was made clear in May as well.
During an Oval Office press availability, he was asked, “Is the administration sending migrants to Libya?” Given the importance of immigration and deportation policy to his administration, one might have thought this would be an easy question.
Not for the president. “I don’t know,” he responded. “You’ll have to ask the Department of Homeland Security.”
On May 7, Trump was asked about Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s discussion of possible tariff exemptions for certain consumer goods. Tariffs are another key area of administration policy.
But no change.
“I don’t know, I’ll think about it,” the president said. “I don’t know. I really don’t.”
And recently, when asked, “Why do you think your supporters in particular have been so interested in the Epstein story?” The president again professed ignorance.
“I don't understand…. I don't understand it.”
As MSNBC’s Steve Benen has rightly observed, “Most objective observers would probably agree that if Joe Biden repeatedly said, ‘I don’t know’ in response to simple questions about his own administration, it would be front-page news.”
Since the president returned to the White House, it has not been.
Nor has the press paid much attention to how little time President Trump spends at work. A website that tracks his golfing habits reports that as of July 25, he “has golfed 43 days out of 187 days since returning to office (23.0% of the presidency spent golfing).”
He spent eight of April’s 30 days on the golf course and eight of May’s 31 days there as well.
Even when he is in the White House, the president devotes enormous amounts of time to what is politely referred to as “executive time.” During that time, he is not in the Oval Office or doing official business.
In his first term, such executive time meant that he spent “his mornings in the residence, watching TV, reading the papers, and responding to what he sees and reads by phoning aides, members of Congress, friends, administration officials, and informal advisers.”
In 2019, Newsweek explained that “Trump Spends Two-Thirds of his Time as President Doing Nothing in Particular.” With this schedule, it is no wonder that the president appears to be unfamiliar with his policies, constitutional duties, and the actions of his subordinates on his behalf.
Delegation is one thing; indifference is another.
What the columnist Steve Chapman wrote early in the president’s first term remains true today. “Much of Trump's cluelessness about issues,” Chapman argued, “stems from his refusal to make more than a minimal effort at his job…. “
Trump, Chapman continued, “is not merely too lazy to learn; he's too lazy to notice there is anything others know that he might need to. His is indolence on an epic scale.”
Democratic governments can work well when power is delegated by political leaders who remain attentive and accountable. But a leader’s laziness, indifference, and ignorance are a toxic brew in any government, but especially in one as powerful as our own, and where the people entrust much of that power to the president.
Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College.
Ghislaine Maxwell, September 20, 2013
Ghislaine Maxwell, the convicted accomplice of Jeffrey Epstein, has met twice this week with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche—a move that’s raising eyebrows across Washington and reigniting public demands for transparency in the Epstein saga.
Maxwell, currently serving a 20-year sentence in a Florida federal prison, reportedly initiated the meetings herself. According to her attorney, David Oscar Markus, she answered “every single question” posed by DOJ officials over the course of nine hours of interviews. Sources indicate that she was granted limited immunity, which allowed her to speak freely without fear of self-incrimination.
The meetings come amid mounting pressure on the Trump administration, which has faced backlash for walking back earlier promises to release all Epstein-related documents. Reports from The Wall Street Journal and CNN indicate that Donald Trump’s name appears multiple times in the Epstein files, though officials stress that being named does not imply wrongdoing.
The House Oversight Committee has now subpoenaed Maxwell to testify remotely in August, potentially opening the door to public revelations about Epstein’s network and its ties to powerful figures. Legal experts believe her testimony could shed light on the alleged “client list,” travel arrangements for underage victims, and whether influential individuals—including politicians and celebrities—were involved.
While the DOJ has stated that no further charges are expected and that no client list exists, critics argue that Maxwell’s cooperation suggests otherwise. As Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz put it, “She is the Rosetta Stone. She knows everything”.
Whether these developments lead to new indictments or deepen public mistrust remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: Maxwell’s voice is no longer silent, and Washington is bracing for what she might say next.
Trump has responded with a mix of deflection, denial, and strategic distancing.
Speaking to reporters outside the White House before departing for Scotland, Trump said he had “nothing to do with the guy,” referring to Epstein, despite years of documented social ties between the two. He dismissed questions about Maxwell’s cooperation with the DOJ, stating, “I haven’t thought about a pardon,” though he acknowledged he was “allowed to do it”.
Critics have pointed to the conflict of interest in Blanche’s role, given his past ties to Trump. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called the private interviews “glaring corruption,” while others questioned whether the DOJ’s outreach was a genuine pursuit of justice or a political maneuver.
Trump, meanwhile, shifted focus to other figures linked to Epstein, including Bill Clinton and Larry Summers, saying, “You should focus on them. I sure as hell didn’t live with Epstein”. He also denied sending a lewd birthday letter to Epstein in 2003, calling it “another fake news story” and suing The Wall Street Journal for libel.
The White House communications team has dismissed reports that Trump’s name appears “multiple times” in the Epstein files as “fake news,” despite Attorney General Pam Bondi allegedly briefing him on the matter in May.
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum and is the publisher of the Latino News Network.
