Have you had to deal with people at odds with one another, or you? The Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh and Essential Partners share dialogue tools and techniques that will help you engage in divisive situations. Reflective Structured Dialogue has addressed some of the hardest conflicts through 30 years of work in the US and 25 other countries.
President Donald Trump speaks to the press in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., on June 3, 2026.
It's been a while since we saw a lame duck presidency — long enough in politics to maybe forget what one looks like.
In October 2014, President Barack Obama hit his lowest approval rating yet at 40%. The midterm elections were an absolute bloodbath for Democrats — Republicans expanded their majority in the House by 13 seats and took control of the Senate with a gain of nine seats.
The predictions for the second half of Obama’s second term were fatalistic. As early as 2013, analysts were calling his presidency DOA, having seemingly spent all of his political capital on getting the Affordable Care Act passed and implemented, which didn’t go smoothly. He suffered early second-term losses on the Bush-era tax cuts, gun control efforts, and immigration reform.
There was just nothing left in the tank. Or so it seemed.
But Obama defied those predictions. In 2015, he got a huge win when the Supreme Court — in a surprise from conservative Chief Justice John Roberts — ruled in favor of keeping Obamacare intact, preserving his signature legislation.
Then, the ambitious Trans Pacific Partnership deal, the world’s biggest ever trade agreement accounting for two-fifths of trade, got fast-tracked by a highly divided Congress.
He got another win in Cuba, where he secured an agreement to resume diplomatic relations after 54 years of hostilities. And he signed an Iran nuclear deal designed to prevent Iran from developing nukes in exchange for sanction relief.
Whatever you think of Obamacare, the TPP, and the Cuba and Iran deals, it’s hard to argue Obama’s final months in office were very “lame.” In as little as a year, he’d redefined the meaning of the term.
We know how much Obama tends to get in Donald Trump’s head. As the legend goes, after all, it was Obama’s mockery of Trump at the 2011 White House Correspondents’ Dinner that provoked him to run for president. Ever since, he’s been fixated on the ex chief, even blasting his Chicago presidential library with petty jabs in recent months.
Well, Trump only wishes he were having the final few years that Obama did. Instead, it seems, Trump’s lame-duck presidency has arrived early.
Trump’s approval has plummeted since his inauguration, dropping from 52% to 38%, while his disapproval has shot up 15 points.
Thanks in large part to his dumb tariffs and dumb war in Iran, the midterms are looking so bad for Republicans, the party’s resorted to mid-census redistricting schemes that may or may not pay off. Democrats could not only take back the House but win the Senate, with candidates in red states like Texas, Iowa and Ohio in real contention.
Then there are his recent losses. A lot of them.
The $1.8 billion slush fund to pay out MAGA loyalists, including Jan. 6 insurrectionists, was met with such disdain from his own party, he had to dump it.
Four Republicans in the House just voted with Democrats to pass a war powers resolution directing Trump to withdraw military forces from Iran.
Republicans in both chambers have come out to condemn Trump’s utterly absurd pick for director of national intelligence, Bill Pulte.
The fate of his billion-dollar ballroom remains up in the air, as do the “Trump battleships” he’s proposed. A judge ruled he cannot put his name on the Kennedy Center, and his Freedom 250 concert series collapsed as musical acts dropped out one by one, leaving Vanilla Ice to headline, if it happens at all.
These are some humiliating losses. And the crazy part is, had Trump pursued “normal” policy wins for Americans instead of the insane, vulgar, and self-interested nonsense he has, he’d surely be in a different position.
But he didn’t. Welcome to your lame duck, era, Mr. President.
S.E. Cupp is the host of "S.E. Cupp Unfiltered" on CNN.
Reporters and members of the media raise their hand to ask a question to U.S. President Donald Trump during a press conference in the Brady Briefing Room of the White House on April 25, 2026 in Washington, DC.
“Freedom of conscience, of education, of speech, of assembly are among the very fundamentals of democracy, and all of them would be nullified should freedom of the press ever be successfully challenged.” – Franklin D. Roosevelt, 32nd U.S. President
Throughout America’s 250 years, the tension between the White House and the press is as old as the republic itself. Several presidents haven’t necessarily tried to repeal the First Amendment (which protects the press), per se, or the Fifth Amendment (which protects journalists’ confidential sources). Instead, some have tried to control the narrative and limit press access.
Let’s try to understand why restricting freedom of the press by the current president should be of concern, as FDR so eloquently stated back in 1940.
The First Amendment clash: Some presidents view media scrutiny as an obstruction to governing and/or a threat to national security, whereas the press views executive branch secrecy and access restrictions as a direct assault on the right to inform the public.
The Fifth Amendment clash: When the government uses surveillance and/or the threat of jail time to force journalists to reveal confidential sources, it creates a battle over federal overreach and the rule of law.
The most significant reason why a few presidents push back against the press is that, since the failed Vietnam War, the Watergate scandal, and media coverage escalating to round-the-clock news, some leaders have realized that unhindered media access swayed public opinion against their administrations.
Historian scholar Harold Holzer’s work on the presidency reveals that many leaders treat journalists as political threats rather than democratic partners. They fear, not revere, the press (The Presidents vs. The Press, 2021).
There are 15 specific examples where freedom of the press has been challenged during the 16 months of Trump’s 2.0 presidency. Here’s a capsule summary of the incidents:
1) On Sept. 15, 2025, a $15 billion defamation lawsuit was filed against The New York Times and four journalists for their reporting on the book titled Lucky Loser.
2) A $10 billion suit against the BBC over the editing of Trump’s Jan. 6 speech was filed on Dec. 15, 2025.
3) And on July 18, 2025, a $10 billion lawsuit was filed against The Wall Street Journal for reporting the president’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.
1) In February, 2025, Associated Press reporters were indefinitely banned from press events after refusing to use the president’s preferred term “Gulf of America” instead of “Gulf of Mexico.”
2) In 2025, news outlets CNN, NPR, NBC News, The Hill, Politico, The New York Times, and The Washington Post were denied Pentagon office space.
3) In September, 2025, the Department of Defense required reporters to sign a pledge promising not to use material even if it was unclassified.
4) On March 4 and 10, the Pentagon barred Associated Press, Reuters, and Getty Images photographers from attending Iran War briefings.
1) The administration used FCC regulatory approval for the $8 billion Paramount-Skydance merger as leverage, which led CBS to cancel The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.
2) On May 1, 2025, executive orders were issued to cancel NPR and PBS federal funding; a congressional request occurred on June 3.
3) On March 14, 2025, the administration attempted to shut down Voice of America and Radio Free Europe.
4) On April 6, 2026, regarding a leak about a U.S. rescue operation in Iran, Trump told journalists to “give [the source] up or go to jail.”
5) The administration launched an official government tool – White House Bias Tracker – to track and publicly flag “media bias,” which serves as a state-sponsored blacklist for journalists.
1) Notable reporters, like Don Lemon and George Fort, were arrested on Jan. 29 while covering public protests.
2) On Oct. 3, 2025, Atlanta-based Spanish-language journalist Mario Guevara was deported to El Salvador following critical reporting.
3) On Jan. 14, the FBI raided the residence of Hannah Natanson, a Washington Post journalist, allegedly to uncover the source of a government contractor leak.
Fifteen attempts by President Trump to restrict freedom of the press in 16 months of his second presidency are unprecedented and should be a clarion call to every American to demand action. Bipartisan congressional oversight is long overdue.
It’s time to seriously reflect on the breadth, depth, and scope of GOP President Ronald Reagan’s Oct. 6, 1983, historic comment: “Since the founding of this nation, freedom of the press has been a fundamental tenet of American life. The economic freedom that has earned us such great bounty and the precious freedoms of speech and assembly would have little meaning or be totally nullified should freedom of the press ever be ended.”
Steve Corbin is a professor emeritus of marketing at the University of Northern Iowa and a non-paid freelance guest columnist contributor to 158 newspapers and 47 social media platforms in 44 states.
Audience members listen as U.S. President Donald Trump speaks at the Coosa Steel Corporation on February 19, 2026 in Rome, Georgia.
Stop. I am not implying that Trump is the equivalent of Hitler. As I have said in two previous posts suggesting an analogy between Hitler and Trump, while Trump has an evil streak, he is not even close to being as evil as Hitler (see "The Hitler-Trump Analogy" and "Another Hitler-Trump Analogy"). However, Trump has characteristics, and his supporters have characteristics, in common with Hitler and his followers.
Trump is a megalomaniac; his self-aggrandizement knows no bounds. See my article, "Trump - Poster Child of a Megalomaniac." Trump clearly thinks of himself as a man who can do no wrong, the brightest person in the world, a king, a master of the universe. There are no rules that apply to him. As he said in a New York Times interview, "My own morality, my own mind. It's the only thing that can stop me."
He has taken this country to war without consulting or getting authorization from Congress, disrupting not just America's economy and causing price increases, but disrupting economies around the world. And when asked whether he has considered the impact of the war on the prices people have to pay, on Americans' finances, his response was "not even a little bit. I don't think about Americans' financial situation."
Trump demands total obeisance from everyone around him. Trump will brook no disagreement with him or failure to follow his orders. And because he has made clear what will happen to you if you do cross him, just about everyone—whether in the Executive Branch or Republicans in Congress, and even many judges that Trump appointed—bends his knee and does Trump's bidding. Clearly, almost everyone fears Trump's wrath.
Trump destroys his enemies. Depending on whether you are a disloyal Republican or a Democrat, Trump's retribution differs. If you are a disloyal member of Congress, he will encourage a primary challenge to you and endorse your opponent. If you are a government official, he will fire you; that you attempted to follow his orders but came to the conclusion that it wouldn't work—such as DOJ attorneys who can't get an indictment or think the case is not warranted—does not lessen Trump's anger.
If you are a Democrat who has been a thorn in his side or has in the past been involved in efforts to discredit or punish him, he will order the DOJ to find some reason for indicting you.
Trump is a racist. I am not using the term as it is generally used in the United States, to indicate that someone is biased against Blacks. Trump's racism is broader—he is biased against everyone who is not White. Whether Mexican, Haitian, Muslim, or from other "shit-hole" countries (his term), Trump has used a stream of vitriol to degrade immigrants from such countries/areas, referring to them as rapists, criminals, drug dealers, among other things. As for Blacks, he has referred to them as lazy, stupid, or low I.Q.
To Trump supporters, he can do no wrong. Despite all these negative characteristics of Trump, and despite his actions having worsened their financial situation by causing the prices they pay for everyday food and supplies to increase and his not bringing back their jobs, as he promised, Trump supporters—not just his hard-core base, but Republicans in general—continue to support him.
While the latest New York Times/Sienna poll shows him to be at his lowest approval rating ever—75% of independents and virtually all Democrats now disapprove of his performance—he continues to draw solid support from Republicans. It appears that nothing he does will weaken their support for him; they are like members of a cult.
So even as he causes havoc in the United States and around the world, even as his policies have worsened the' economic plight of America's blue-collar middle class and poor—whether White or people of color—he is worshipped by the average Republican voter and either worshipped or feared by the average Republican elected official or government employee.
They are almost fanatical in their support of him. So the title of this article, "Heil Trump," is not inappropriate. He is, in the minds of most Republican voters, "der Führer," the exalted leader.
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
Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies hearing in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill on May 19, 2026 in Washington, D.C. The hearing was held to examine the Department of Justice's proposed FY2027 budget estimate.
There was a time the Republican Party believed in policies and principles. Conservatives genuinely believed in democracy and America, and not the cynical new version that requires its citizens to hate each other. And they believed in a contest of ideas.
The concept of competing for the soul of the nation with intellectually rigorous ideas and admittedly populist rhetoric became foundational to American politics and in particular movement conservatism later on in that century.
In a speech at CPAC in 1985, President Ronald Reagan boasted of the right’s recent dominance as a result of that competition. “Now, we’re not in power now because [the left] failed to gain electoral support over the past 50 years. They did win support. And the result was chaos, weakness, and drift,” he said. “Ultimately, though…we are where we are because we’re winning the contest of ideas. In fact, in the past decade, all of a sudden, quietly, mysteriously, the Republican Party has become the party of ideas…. All of a sudden, Republicans were not defenders of the status quo but creators of the future.”
And it was this way for some time, when conservatives believed that if given the opportunity, they could win over the country on the power of their ideas.
But in the era of Donald Trump, Republicans have decided competing is no longer useful or necessary, and they’re out of good ideas.
In some ways, they’re not wrong. Polling for any number of Trump’s “ideas,” from the Iran war to tariffs to burying the Epstein files are wildly unpopular and Republicans would lose that competition if judged solely on their merits.
But rather than even bother persuading, they’ve opted for other less democratic and more cynical pursuits to win elections.
The latest is Trump’s $1.8 billion slush fund, which will award allies and Trump supporters “compensation” for what the Trump DOJ is calling weaponized lawfare against them.
That means, presumably, that Jan. 6 insurrectionists, some of whom committed crimes at the Capitol, including assaulting police officers, could apply for and win taxpayer dollars as a form of political reparation.
One way to view these payoffs is that they’re a blatant bribe to buy MAGA support at a time when Trump is unpopular and making unpopular decisions that are impacting his own voters.
The GOP redistricting orgy is another example of Republicans simply giving up on winning voters over. Trump and his cronies in Congress love to boast about how America is now the “hottest” country, thanks to him, but if that were the case, wouldn’t they just go out and sell that to voters before the midterms? Instead, they’ve spent millions carving out new districts all over the South. That’s hardly a reflection of a party that’s confident in their ideas and their message — rather, it’s a party admitting, we can’t win it unless we rig it.
Trump’s media fights are about more than just his fragile ego, too. They’re another tell. In trying to coerce new Trump-friendly mergers, to get detractors fired from Fox and elsewhere, to sue media outlets for critical coverage, Trump isn’t just telegraphing his deep insecurities, he’s tacitly admitting he can’t win with a free and fair press.
Trump, the consummate salesman, isn’t even bothering to sell voters on his economy or his war anymore. He’s just lying about both, and hoping loyalty to him will be enough. But just in case it isn’t, Republicans are doing every craven thing they can to tip the scales and go around the voters.
It’s sad to watch how far the party of Reagan has fallen, but today’s Republican Party has unequivocally waved the white flag in the contest of ideas, and they’re just hoping we’re all too stupid to notice they’re no longer even asking for our vote.
GOP Waves White Flag in Contest of Ideas was originally published by The Tribune Content Agency and is republished with permission.
