Politics in Question
In this episode of the Politics in Question podcast, Colorado State Senator Faith Winter discusses the power of collaborative governance and how residents, activists, and elected officials can share in decision-making power to achieve common goals.
Trump's unchecked racism reveals just how fragile the state of American democracy is.
Donald Trump posted a video online depicting the Obamas as apes.
This isn’t shocking—or at least it shouldn’t be. Trump has built an entire political career out of saying the quiet racist part out loud and then daring the country to do something about it.
From housing discrimination in the 1970s and the Central Park Five ads to birtherism and comments about “shithole countries,” the man has been running the same racist playbook for decades. This is the same man who told congresswomen of color to go back where they came from and warned that immigrants are “poisoning the blood” of the nation. At this point, treating any of this as shocking requires a kind of practiced amnesia.
Depicting the first Black president and first lady as apes is racist, dehumanizing, and offensive in ways that aren’t exactly subtle or remotely original.
Still, the current president of the United States sharing this video matters—even if he ultimately deleted it.
And what happened next matters more.
This latest episode, which occurred in the first week of February, is not just another entry in America’s long, ugly scrapbook of anti-Black dehumanization. It’s a stress test—a very simple one, really, of how much open anti-Black cruelty American institutions can sustain while still pretending this is a democracy.
History suggests the answer is “quite a lot.”
To be fair, a handful of Republicans objected to Trump’s racist AI slop. Eleven Republican members of Congress by my count, managed to locate both their conscience and a microphone. Some of them even managed to say the word “racist,” which in modern Republican politics is akin to setting yourself on fire.
But here’s the problem: Nothing happened next. Nothing changed.
As with so many past examples of outrageously deviant behavior by the chief executive, this moment was brushed aside as simply another example of Trump being Trump—filed away as background noise rather than as a political event with political consequences.
But the relevant question after Trump posted the offensive video was never whether a few people could locate their conscience for long enough to issue a press release. The real question was whether any of it would produce consequences that meaningfully altered Trump’s standing inside the GOP.
It did not.
The mainstream media behaved as if a few Republicans who registered their disapproval became evidence that our democracy is healthy. We saw headlines about Republican “pushback” and stories about internal tension.
The New York Times described an “unusually strong and public outcry,” as though a few sentences of disapproval from a tiny fraction of the GOP was meaningful. Al Jazeera called it an “outpouring of bipartisan condemnation,” which seems hyperbolic when 97 percent of Republican officials said nothing.
Republican leaders absolutely know the imagery Trump shared is racist. They are not confused. They are not misinformed. They are making a calculation. And the calculation is simple: angering Trump’s base is more dangerous than tolerating Trump’s racism.
So they tolerate it. Again and again.
By the time you read this, the media will have likely moved on. After all, every day in the Trump administration brings a fresh hell and even open racism struggles to hold the public’s attention. Trump is historically extreme in both cruelty and contempt for the political norms that once constrained even the most harmful presidents. So why am I even writing about it? Shouldn’t I just move on?
No. Because this is how normalization actually works. Not through silence, but through consequence so weak it barely registers. A little dissent. A few headlines. Some sternly worded tweets. And, in this case, a defiant president who once claimed he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose any voters actually being forced to delete a racist post (after first defending it and trying to shuffle the blame onto a White House aide).
And then everybody goes back to pretending the restraints that once limited this behavior still hold.
They do not.
Take former President Ronald Reagan. In 1971—nine years before he assumed the presidency—he was recorded on tape laughing with President Richard Nixon and describing a United Nations delegation from Tanzania as “monkeys.” The remark remained hidden for decades.
The National Archives eventually released the tape in 2000, but the racist language was redacted. When the full remarks were finally released in 2019, Reagan’s daughter, Patti Davis, tearfully took to the pages of the Washington Post to defend her father, claiming that the language was an aberration rather than evidence of how power actually spoke behind closed doors. (I beg to differ.)
Evidently, past presidents who used racist language were clearly forced into apology, distance, or damage control. Trump mostly avoids these pressures, beyond deleting a post and refusing to apologize for it.
So, yes, everyone understands that depicting the Obamas as apes is racist. And still, only 11 congressional Republicans could be bothered to condemn it. Trump hasn’t lost any standing in the GOP as a result of it.
That’s where the real danger lives—not in Trump’s cruelty, and not even in his contempt for rules or law, but in the steady erosion of the political norms that once made certain behavior disqualifying for any politician, much less for the president. American institutions have now demonstrated a willingness to treat even this level of norm violation as politically survivable.
Once cruelty becomes politically survivable, the consequences do not remain confined to spicy internet discourse and barbs thrown between elected officials. They migrate into policy—and eventually into law.
For decades, civil-rights law has recognized a basic reality: Discrimination doesn’t always announce itself with a slur or a white hood. Sometimes it shows up as a “facially neutral” policy—one that does not mention race on its face—that just so happens to keep producing racially unequal outcomes. This is known in legalese as “disparate impact.”
The Supreme Court established the concept of disparate impact in Griggs v. Duke Power in 1971, which concerned the legality of requiring written intelligence-and skills-based tests that effectively precluded Black employees from advancing beyond low-level jobs. (Yes, there was actually a time the Supreme Court behaved as if it understood how racism works.)
Trump has now taken aim at that doctrine. In April 2025, he issued an executive order that tells federal agencies to stop enforcing disparate impact liability wherever possible. An executive order can’t magically erase statutes or Supreme Court precedent. But it can signal how aggressively—or whether at all—the law will be enforced.
Taken together with Trump’s assault on school and workplace diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives—which he tried to outlaw in a January 2025 executive order—a pattern begins to emerge. If Trump’s policies on disparate impact liability become reality, Black plaintiffs—facing the kind of housing or employment discrimination that is rarely confessed out loud—will struggle to prove discriminatory intent in court.
This has obvious disadvantages for Black people. And it has a corollary advantage for white people, because white plaintiffs can point to diversity or equity programs as affirmative evidence of intentional discrimination against them. The result is a civil-rights framework turned inside out, one that makes inequality harder to challenge and white grievance easier to vindicate. Meanwhile, Trump and his allies insist this inversion is what fairness actually looks like.
This is what consequence-free racism looks like once it moves from speech into the law. And it becomes harder to fight once it gets there.
This isn’t an abstract legal debate. It’s happening right now. Reconstruction-era civil-rights statutes—written to guarantee Black Americans the same rights as white citizens—are now being used in ways that make it easier for inequality to continue against Black Americans.
Examples include legal efforts to shut down programs intended to remedy racial exclusion, such as the successful legal challenges to investment programs like Fearless Fund, created to address the historic exclusion of Black women entrepreneurs from venture capital, as well as the recent prosecution of Black journalists covering protest, like Don Lemon.
Laws designed to dismantle white supremacy are being repurposed to police the people still targeted by it. Because in the United States, even the laws designed to fight white supremacy can eventually be repurposed to defend it, provided you wait long enough and hire enough lawyers.
None of this is unprecedented, of course. After Reconstruction, the Constitution technically promised equality, while Jim Crow and the KKK made a mockery of it. American history is full of moments where rights existed on paper while disappearing everywhere else.
What feels different during Trump’s presidency is not necessarily the racism. It’s the shrug.
A meaningful slice of the electorate keeps rewarding his racist behavior. Political leaders keep accommodating it. Media institutions keep normalizing it. And democracy—supposedly—keeps functioning.
Which brings us to the uncomfortable truth at the center of all this: American democracy has always depended on voluntary restraint. On powerful people choosing not to do the worst thing they were technically allowed to do.
What the Trump era has revealed is how fragile that arrangement really is.
Because once abandoning restraint and trafficking in open racism carries no real consequence, the guardrails don’t fail dramatically. They just stop existing. And when the guardrails are gone, the law does not remain neutral. It reorganizes itself around the new reality. If that new reality is old racism, the question stops being whether the system is once again bending toward white supremacy.
The question is whether anything in the system still exists that can bend it back.
Trump’s Racism Carries No Consequences—And That’s Scary was originally published by Rewire News Group and is republished with permission.
Imani Gandy is Co-Chief Content Officer for Rewire News Group.
President Donald Trump speaks to members of the media traveling on Air Force One while heading to Miami on March 7, 2026.
Like a wolf in sheep’s clothing, America’s president is undermining the Republic by evading checks, consolidating power, and attacking democratic norms. He disguises his malicious intentions as innocence while dismantling policies and programs that would help citizens.
In earlier opinions, I wrote about three forces that corrode democracy: hypocrisy, corruption, and confusion. Hypocrisy creates a false image of leadership; corruption erodes public trust and suppresses voter participation; confusion keeps the public from seeing the truth. Together, they weaken the Republic.
A president who once declared, “I alone can fix it" now demands concentrated power while the country crumbles. He presents himself as a stabilizing force yet governs through intimidation. He speaks of restoring order while undermining the institutions that make order possible.
This fable of The Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing applies to public life. In the story, the wolf disguises himself as a sheep to confuse the flock and move freely among them. The disguise is not a costume — it is a strategy. It allows the wolf to deceive. The president uses a similar disguise. He wraps himself in patriotic language while weakening systems that safeguard the nation. He claims to defend the country while demanding loyalty to himself. He presents himself as a protector while pursuing power and money.
Confusion is not accidental. It is engineered to dull public judgment. When leaders flood public life with contradictions and manufactured crises, citizens lose the ability to distinguish governance from performance. A leader who creates chaos then presents himself as the one strong enough to control it. This strategy is not hidden. Project 2025 — a blueprint for consolidating executive power — is a public declaration of intent. Yet Congress, the branch designed to check presidential overreach, remains silent. Silence is not neutrality. Silence is permission — and it leaves citizens relying on their own judgment to see what leaders refuse to confront.
On January 20, 2025, he raised his right hand, repeated the oath, and immediately began performing duties that bore no resemblance to service to the people. Beneath the disguise, consequences were immediate: Families were separated and jailed. A violent immigration crackdown spread across the country. Innocent Americans were killed by ICE agents. DEI programs were dismantled. Journalists were humiliated and imprisoned. Personal voting data was collected. He pretended to protect the people but governed to protect himself. He pretended to be a reformer but dismantled systems that safeguard fairness.
The pattern extended beyond domestic policy. He invaded Venezuela in January 2026 and ordered strikes on Iran in February 2026, bypassing congressional authorization — a sweeping assertion of executive power. He pretends to be strong but relies on confusion, cover‑ups, and spectacle. His actions reveal a pattern of power without accountability. It is a performance — a fraudulent one — yet his loyalists ignore and excuse his overreach and abuse of power.
Americans watched as he built a cabinet designed for obedience. Nominees were individuals whose wealth insulated them from accountability and prevented them from challenging him. Those appointed to key positions were chosen not for experience, but for their role in crafting Project 2025 — a plan designed to concentrate presidential power by weakening the institutions meant to check him. These were not ordinary appointments; they were strategic placements. The very people who helped write the plan were positioned to carry it out. The intent was unmistakable: reshape the federal system so that loyalty to the president would outweigh loyalty to the Constitution.
Those strategic placements had consequences. Cabinet members and leaders in Congress have a responsibility not to the president, but to the Constitution and Americans. Yet many chose to reinforce the president’s falsehoods, applaud his distortions, and shield him from accountability. Rather than offering honest counsel and transparency, they echoed his claims. Rather than checking his excesses and overreach, they enabled them. Their silence — and their applause — do not protect us. They protect him.
On February 24, 2026, he delivered the longest presidential address in modern history — a marathon of exaggerations, self‑congratulation, and false claims. He boasted that he had taken prescription drug prices from the highest in the world to the lowest. He bragged about accomplishments that never materialized. He never mentioned unkept promises: relief on housing, food, or healthcare. And yet, despite the spectacle, his approval rating remained low — a sign the public no longer buys his lies. His loyalists applauded anyway, not because they believed him, but because loyalty has replaced judgment. That loyalty came at a cost.
He ignored the Epstein victims’ search for truth and closure, offering no acknowledgment of their suffering, while praising the hockey players he suggested had “fought on his behalf”. This is not leadership. It is favoritism disguised as strength.
Democratic decline rarely begins with a dramatic collapse. It begins with smaller fractures: norms stretched before they are broken, oversight criticized before it is weakened, elections questioned before they are undermined, institutions attacked before they are ignored. When a president claims the power to decide which laws apply to him, the public loses the ability to hold him accountable — unless citizens exercise independent judgment.
When he undermines the legitimacy of elections, the people lose their voice. When he attacks independent institutions, the nation loses its safeguards. Concentrated power does not return what it takes. It must be stopped — to prevent deepening inequality, to protect democratic processes, to guard against tyranny, and to preserve liberty itself. That is why constitutional clarity matters.
But the Constitution does not give the final word to any president. It gives it to the people. Democracy is not the property of any party or state — red, blue, or purple. For the Republic to endure, citizens must exercise their constitutional rights, demand that Congress use its power of checks and balances, and engage in civic responsibility.
Americans must see leaders as they are and refuse to surrender their judgment to noise, division, fear, or personality. Political judgment is about choosing sides. Citizen judgment is about choosing the Republic. Political judgment asks, “Which team am I on?” Citizen judgment asks, “What protects the Constitution and the common good?” One is driven by loyalty, personality, or party identity; the other by responsibility, research, and reflection.
Political judgment rewards performance, outrage, and allegiance. Citizen judgment evaluates whether leaders tell the truth, respect limits on power, and uphold their oath. Political judgment applauds a leader’s claims because he is “ours.” Citizen judgment checks whether those claims are real — and whether they strengthen or weaken democratic institutions.
Political judgment narrows the lens to winning. Citizen judgment widens it to safeguarding the Republic.
Judgment matters most when public life is clouded by confusion and spectacle. It requires research, self‑awareness, and reflection on how past choices shape the present. Voters must examine how their decisions affect the Republic, resist tactics meant to distract or divide, and demand accountability and transparency from every public official. Congress must prevent the concentration of power, exercise oversight, and uphold its constitutional responsibilities.
Citizens must vote, hold peaceful protests, challenge federal overreach, support a free press, and insist on separation of powers and judicial independence.
We must not allow the wolf to destroy our democracy. We strengthen the Republic when we let him know that we see who he is — and refuse to be misled. Democracy is not self‑correcting. It is citizen‑correcting. Judgment is not just a civic duty; it is the last line of protection between a free people and the concentrated power that seeks to weaken them.
_____________________________________________________________________
Carolyn Goode is a retired educational leader and national advocate for ethical leadership, civic responsibility, and institutional accountability. She writes about democratic norms, public trust, and the moral responsibilities of citizenship.
President Donald Trump speaks to reporters during a news conference at Trump National Doral Miami on March 9, 2026, in Doral, Florida. President Trump spoke on his administration's strikes on Iran.
If you ask President Trump, he’ll tell you we’ve already won the war in Iran.
When asked for an update by Axios on Wednesday, Trump responded with the kind of upbeat nonchalance and flippant boastfulness you’d usually see when asked about the progress on one of his hotels.
“The war is going great,” he said. “We are way ahead of the timetable. We have done more damage than we thought possible, even in the original six-week period.” He then offered that there’s “practically nothing left to target.”
As for an ending? “Any time I want it to end, it will end.”
How, exactly, is it “going great”? What is the “timetable”? Shouldn’t it end when the mission is achieved and not when Trump simply wants it to?
His administration has simultaneously given no rationale to justify our strikes on Iran — failing to prove we were the target of an imminent attack — and all the reasons why we had to, from regime change, to oil, to support for Israel.
It’s sent mixed messages on timing, promising both that it’s practically over and that it could take a while. And it’s been unreliable in its own accounting of what’s actually happened. Have we decimated Iran’s nukes? (I thought we’d already done that.) And who is responsible for the attack that killed 160 schoolchildren in Iran?
We still have no answers to these important questions. When pressed on the school attack, for one, Trump has said everything from Iran was responsible to, most recently, “I don’t know about it.” But an initial report determined the U.S. was at fault, the result of a targeting mistake.
As for the nukes, which the White House declared“ obliterated” last June, our own intelligence assessment just found that Iran can still access about 60% of its enriched material stored at Esfahan. As the non-partisan Arms Control Association notes, “Although strikes can set back Iran’s nuclear program and destroy key infrastructure…military force cannot eliminate Tehran’s proliferation risk.”
Trump’s version of events, as is so often the case, isn’t based on facts, but wishcasting, projection, bombast and bluffs.
And abroad, it isn’t working.
In France, for example, Le Monde derides Trump’s treatment of the war as “spectacle,” lambasting his “celebratory tone.” It noted his grotesque joke that it’s “more fun” to sink Iranian warships than to seize them,” and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s boast that “we are punching [the Iranians] while they’re down, which is exactly how it should be.”
In The Guardian, columnist Rafael Behr points out the chaos and incompetence of Trump’s war: “Regime change was the plan, but Trump finds it easier to change plans than regimes. He says he has won, but also that he has more winning to do. This is the familiar stage of rhetorical climbdown, indicating dawning awareness that a problem is more complicated than the president initially thought. Complexity resists his whim. It bores him.”
And in Germany’s Bild, Europe’s highest-circulating newspaper, the question is pointed: “Whose pockets is Trump filling with bombs?” It declares “the clearest winner in the biggest Middle East conflict in decades is the U.S. arms industry” and Trump’s sons, who are conveniently now in the drone business.
The world can see through Trump’s charade, but do American voters? Most polls show more voters oppose the war than support it, but by a slim margin.
That margin will widen with time, most certainly. And then Trump’s slick sales pitch will be less and less effective. Or maybe I’m the one who’s wishcasting.
S.E. Cupp is the host of "S.E. Cupp Unfiltered" on CNN.
President Donald Trump speaks to the Republican Members Issues Conference at Trump National Doral Miami on March 9, 2026 in Doral, Florida.
Donald Trump has created his own Alice in Wonderland world, where everything is flipped on its head, where things are the opposite of what they in fact are. He has conquered by labeling things that present the truth as "fake," whereas in fact he himself and what he presents as "truth" to his supporters are fake. What follows is just a small sampling of his manipulation of facts.
1. The latest fake news is Trump's rationale for military action against Iran. He claims that 1) Iran has restarted its nuclear program, 2) that it could build a bomb within days, and 3) will soon have long-range missiles capable of hitting the U.S.
But as reported in The New York Times, these claims are either false or unproven. International monitoring groups and U.S. intelligence find that Iran's uranium is still buried after the last attack, that they have not resumed their nuclear program, that they could not build a bomb quickly, and that long-range missiles that could hit the U.S. are years away. These claims are reminiscent of Bush's false claims of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction as a reason for invading Iraq.
2. He Won the 2020 Election: Probably the most serious of his lies is his claim that he won the 2020 election and that the numbers showed him losing because of fraud and various irregularities. I say the most serious because it presents a serious challenge to the foundation of our democracy—free and fair elections.
What are the facts? After losing, Trump and his allies filed a record 62 suits challenging election processes, vote counting, and vote certification in 9 states. He lost each and every case.
He and his allies also asked for recounts or audits in five states—a total of 8 requests. In each instance, the election results were confirmed—there was no fraud.
Trump tried to have fake electors in seven states certify that he had won their state's election. However, on January 5, Pence made clear that he did not have the discretion to reject valid electoral college certifications, and therefore could not participate in this scheme.
Then in a last effort, on January 6, Trump urged his supporters to storm the U.S. Capitol, where the certification of the election results was to take place that day, and thus disrupt the process.
Trump still does not concede he lost in 2020 and continues to claim fraud. His supporters, as believers, share that belief. This is perhaps the central "fact" that drives his continuing support.
Why have Democrats never made the public and his supporters aware of these overwhelming facts?
3. Illegal Immigrants Are Criminals: Murderers and Rapists: Trump has for years been railing against illegal immigrants as being serious criminals and causing an increase in crime in American cities.
That is fake news. The truth is that U.S. Customs and Border Protection data show that only a small number of illegal immigrants have committed crimes other than illegal entry and DUI. Data from the Texas Dept of Public Safety further show that undocumented immigrants have substantially lower crime rates than US-born citizens. The mass deportation program and ICE actions have been unwarranted.
4. Large "Democratic" Cities Are Out of Control: Starting with the District of Columbia, and then Los Angeles, Chicago, Memphis, and New York, Trump has claimed these cities are dangerous because of out-of-control gang and other criminal activity. He then either called up the state's National Guard over the objection of state and local Democratic officials or sent in the Marines.
The facts are that violent crime has actually decreased in our major cities over the past 6 years. Yes, it is true that crime in the poor sections of these cities is a serious factor affecting residents' lives, and that local police have not been able to make much headway in making these areas safer. Overall, these cities are quite safe.
Further, these troops have not been stationed in poor areas to stop crime. The result is that serious crime has not decreased; the ghettos have not been made safer.
This whole project has been a ruse, creating a reason for Trump to show his power and punish his Democratic enemies.
5. He Is the Best Friend Jews Ever Had: Trump claims that no president has fought antisemitism as much as he has.
That is fake news. The truth is that Trump has not fought antisemitism at all. He has fought what he calls the antisemitism of student protests against Israel's war in Gaza. But as I explained in an article, "Are the Anti-Gaza War Protests an Example of Anti-Semitism?", being anti-Netanyahu or even anti-Israel is not necessarily being antisemitic.
But he has not fought real antisemitism. Here is a man who, as President, has cozied up to white supremacists who are known to be antisemites, as well as Blacks such as Kanye West. He has said nothing about the antisemitic vitriol that comes from these people who support him.
6. He ended the War in Gaza: Trump sees himself as an international peace maker. After the cease-fire and hostage deal were announced, Trump said, "At long last, we have peace in the Middle East." "The war is over."
That is fake news. This was just the first and easiest stage of the larger peace deal, to which neither Hamas nor Israel has committed themselves. There have been ceasefires and hostage deals before. Given the unrelenting enmity between the two forces, it is highly unlikely that a peace deal will ever be reached.
7. He Has Fought For the American Working Man and Farmer: Trump's rise to power was based largely on his support among working men and women and rural Americans, both of whom have been having a rough time economically for decades. Why did they support him? In his speeches, he gave voice to their grievances.
But that posturing was all fake. In reality, Trump has done nothing to help either the working man or the family farmer. What he has done is help big business and the rich. He has, however, done much that has hurt his supporters, mainly through tariffs that have raised prices on everyday products, as well as on tractors and fertilizer, which impact farmers.
And the tariffs imposed on China have caused China to completely cease buying soybeans from American farmers, causing huge losses.
Unfortunately, because he has near-God status among his supporters, he can do no wrong and speaks the truth. Anything his opponents say to prove otherwise is not listened to. Even the clear suffering of farmers because of his actions has not affected their support of him, even as they complain.
What should Democrats do in this situation? Present the public with the truth about these issues and explain why their vision and policies are grounded in our founding principles and will help all Americans. Do it incessantly. Resist bashing Trump because he is very popular with the people you want to convince to vote for you this time. Run a positive campaign.
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
Trump’s ‘Just for Fun’ War Talk Shows a Dangerous Trivialization