Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

When Leaders Put Ego Above Accountability—Democracy At Risk

How chaotic governance erodes trust—and what Americans must do to restore it.

Opinion

Donald Trump

When ego replaces accountability in the presidency, democracy weakens. An analysis of how unchecked leadership erodes trust, institutions, and the rule of law.

Brandon Bell/Getty Images

What has become of America’s presidency? Once a symbol of dignity and public service, the office now appears chaotic, ego‑driven, and consumed by spectacle over substance. When personal ambition replaces accountability, the consequences extend far beyond politics — they erode trust, weaken institutions, and threaten democracy itself.

When leaders place ego above accountability, democracy falters. Weak leaders seek to appear powerful. Strong leaders accept responsibility.


Americans want leaders who embody honesty, humility, and respect — values we teach our children. When leaders abandon these qualities, the nation’s character suffers.

The president’s public behavior is defined by bullying and humiliation — mocking governors as “fat” or “ugly,” calling citizens “pigs,” and ridiculing reporters on live television. These are not displays of strength but symptoms of insecurity. Research shows ethical leaders demonstrate humility and accountability, not cruelty (Frontiers in Psychology).

The pandemic revealed the cost of ego. In October 2020, when hospitalized with COVID‑19, the president staged a balcony moment by removing his mask after leaving Walter Reed (BBC). What could have modeled humility became a performance of ego instead.

Ego unchecked is most dangerous in matters of war and peace. Leaders who bypass Congress or claim unilateral authority erode constitutional balance (Congressional Research Service). Oversight is not an obstacle; it is a safeguard.

A healthy ego gives courage. An inflated ego breeds arrogance, stifles collaboration, and destroys accountability. True accountability requires humility and the willingness to admit mistakes. Instead, ego‑driven leaders pursue personal ambition — as seen in legislation like the Big Beautiful Bill or the reversal of Roe v. Wade (NPR Illinois), both ignoring the voices of millions.

These actions reveal a deeper problem: when presidents face no effective checks, they learn to exploit gaps in accountability. Long before he came to the White House, Trump had already mastered the art of loopholes — in business, in taxes, and in government. He bragged about finding ways around rules, and each time institutions failed to enforce boundaries, his ego grew stronger, and his disregard for responsibility deepened.

Trump is a master of loopholes. In the past, he has bragged about it. He entered the White House with an already inflated ego and the practiced skill of exploiting gaps in accountability. He has never apologized or taken responsibility — he sues and moves on. If citizens could sue him directly, he would drown in lawsuits.

Ego is not confined to the presidency. Members of Congress who evade accountability and justices who fail to uphold their oaths also reveal how inflated egos corrode trust. When legislators place loyalty above courage, or when judges prioritize ideology over integrity, democracy suffers. This is not a partisan problem — it is a bipartisan failure of character.

The consequences of loopholes are not abstract. In a dialysis center, patients and nurses feel the weight of policies shaped by ego and neglect. When leaders exploit gaps in accountability, the result is cuts to care, understaffed facilities, and exhausted professionals. Citizens see firsthand that when ego drives decisions, it is their health, dignity, and trust that suffer.

History reminds us that unchecked leaders rarely stop at one abuse of power. When accountability is absent, ego expands. Past presidents who evaded responsibility left scars on the nation, proving that democracy cannot survive without boundaries.

Chaotic governance is not just embarrassing; it is dangerous. Spectacle displaces stewardship, and ego replaces service. Fiscal spectacle had consequences, with record deficits documented by ConsumerAffairs and the Peter G. Peterson Foundation. These numbers reflect chaos rather than disciplined governance.

The damage extends beyond budgets. Ego corrodes institutions, dampens morale, and erodes trust. Staff and advisors navigate a hostile environment where flattery is demanded and honesty punished. Citizens disengage, exhausted by insults and spectacle.

Accountability requires courage from those closest to power. Cabinet members must stop offering fake praise simply to inflate the president’s ego. He nominated a cabinet for loyalty, not competence — a chorus of enablers feeding his insecurity. Weak leaders demand applause; strong leaders accept responsibility. Cabinet officials must replace flattery with honesty and confront ego rather than enable it.

We have observed citizens switching the television channel when governance becomes a spectacle of insults. This disengagement is not apathy; it is a reaction to chaos that undermines trust. The spectacle of insults is well documented, with dozens of personal attacks directed at officials, citizens, and reporters.

Americans want leaders with a healthy ego — one grounded in confidence, humility, and service. A healthy ego empowers others, listens to experts, and accepts responsibility. An unhealthy ego demands applause, silences dissent, and rewards flattery.

Finding solutions will not be easy. It will take persistence, courage, and vigilance because the president has rarely been checked. Ego, this inflated, resists boundaries. However, Congress is not powerless. Through its power of the purse, it can curb reckless spending. Through hearings and subpoenas, it can expose misconduct. And through its confirmation authority, the Senate can demand integrity in appointments. Oversight is not obstruction; it is the safeguard of democracy.

The Supreme Court must also act. Judicial review is not obstruction; it is a safeguard against ego‑driven overreach. The Court can revisit or overturn immunity doctrines that shield presidents from accountability. By reaffirming that no leader is above the law, the Court can restore balance and protect the integrity of our democracy.

The call is clear: Citizens must reclaim democracy. Your voice, your vote, your vigilance — these are the tools we must employ to restore integrity to leadership and help the president check his own ego. Accountability is not punishment; it is patriotism. Integrity is not optional; it is the cornerstone of a free society.

And citizens must go further: demand that your senators and representatives at the local, state, and national levels hold the president accountable. Democracy cannot survive if elected officials remain silent or complicit.

The presidency is not a stage for ego. It is a trust, sworn by oath, to serve the people. When leaders abandon accountability, they abandon democracy itself. Democracy will survive only if citizens persist, demand courage, enforce accountability, and refuse to be silenced.

Carolyn Goode is a retired educational leader and advocate for ethical leadership and government accountability.

Read More

Who Should Lead Venezuela? Trump Says U.S. Will “Run the Country,” but Succession Questions Intensify

U.S. President Donald Trump at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club on December 28, 2025 in Palm Beach, Florida.

AI generated image with Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Who Should Lead Venezuela? Trump Says U.S. Will “Run the Country,” but Succession Questions Intensify

CARACAS, Venezuela — Hours after U.S. forces captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in a large‑scale military operation, President Donald Trump said the United States would “run the country” until a “safe, proper, and judicious transition” can take place. The comments immediately triggered a global debate over who should govern Venezuela during the power vacuum left by Maduro’s removal.

Trump said Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodríguez had been sworn in as interim president.The president said that “we’ve spoken to her [Rodriguez] numerous times, and she understands, she understands.” However, Rodríguez, speaking live on television Saturday, condemned the U.S. attack and demanded "the immediate release of President Nicolas Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores. The only president of Venezuela, President Nicolas Maduro."

Keep ReadingShow less
After the Ceasefire, the Violence Continues – and Cries for New Words

An Israeli army vehicle moves on the Israeli side, near the border with the Gaza Strip on November 18, 2025 in Southern Israel, Israel.

(Photo by Amir Levy/Getty Images)

After the Ceasefire, the Violence Continues – and Cries for New Words

Since October 10, 2025, the day when the US-brokered ceasefire between Israel and Hamas was announced, Israel has killed at least 401 civilians, including at least 148 children. This has led Palestinian scholar Saree Makdisi to decry a “continuing genocide, albeit one that has shifted gears and has—for now—moved into the slow lane. Rather than hundreds at a time, it is killing by twos and threes” or by twenties and thirties as on November 19 and November 23 – “an obscenity that has coalesced into a new normal.” The Guardian columnist Nesrine Malik describes the post-ceasefire period as nothing more than a “reducefire,” quoting the warning issued by Amnesty International’s secretary general Agnès Callamard that the ”world must not be fooled” into believing that Israel’s genocide is over.

A visual analysis of satellite images conducted by the BBC has established that since the declared ceasefire, “the destruction of buildings in Gaza by the Israeli military has been continuing on a huge scale,” entire neighborhoods “levelled” through “demolitions,” including large swaths of farmland and orchards. The Guardian reported already in March of 2024, that satellite imagery proved the “destruction of about 38-48% of tree cover and farmland” and 23% of Gaza’s greenhouses “completely destroyed.” Writing about the “colossal violence” Israel has wrought on Gaza, Palestinian legal scholar Rabea Eghbariah lists “several variations” on the term “genocide” which researchers found the need to introduce, such as “urbicide” (the systematic destruction of cities), “domicide” (systematic destruction of housing), “sociocide,” “politicide,” and “memoricide.” Others have added the concepts “ecocide,” “scholasticide” (the systematic destruction of Gaza’s schools, universities, libraries), and “medicide” (the deliberate attacks on all aspects of Gaza’s healthcare with the intent to “wipe out” all medical care). It is only the combination of all these “-cides,” all amounting to massive war crimes, that adequately manages to describe the Palestinian condition. Constantine Zurayk introduced the term “Nakba” (“catastrophe” in Arabic) in 1948 to name the unparalleled “magnitude and ramifications of the Zionist conquest of Palestine” and its historical “rupture.” When Eghbariah argues for “Nakba” as a “new legal concept,” he underlines, however, that to understand its magnitude, one needs to go back to the 1917 Balfour Declaration, in which the British colonial power promised “a national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, even though just 6 % of its population were Jewish. From Nakba as the “constitutive violence of 1948,” we need today to conceptualize “Nakba as a structure,” an “overarching frame.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Ukraine, Russia, and the Dangerous Metaphor of Holding the Cards
a hand holding a deck of cards in front of a christmas tree
Photo by Luca Volpe on Unsplash

Ukraine, Russia, and the Dangerous Metaphor of Holding the Cards

Donald Trump has repeatedly used the phrase “holding the cards” during his tenure as President to signal that he, or sometimes an opponent, has the upper hand. The metaphor projects bravado, leverage, and the inevitability of success or failure, depending on who claims control.

Unfortunately, Trump’s repeated invocation of “holding the cards” embodies a worldview where leverage, bluff, and dominance matter more than duty, morality, or responsibility. In contrast, leadership grounded in duty emphasizes ethical obligations to allies, citizens, and democratic principles—elements strikingly absent from this metaphor.

Keep ReadingShow less