Baker is a graduate student at Northwestern's Medill School of Journalism and a former active-duty Marine.
CHARLESTON, S.C. – Inside a vendor’s booth at Charleston’s renowned City Market, Ingrid Ginn gripped a small pair of needle-nosed pliers, twisting a gold wire around itself to finish off a pair of blue and white clay square earrings. A lifelong artist, she opened her small business in 2021 after three decades working in public administration.
Ginn is a wife, a mother, a Colombian immigrant and an American citizen of four years. She has been looking forward to exercising her right to vote in the upcoming 2024 presidential election, in which she plans to cast her ballot for Donald Trump.
She trusts him because he built his own fortune, and she doesn’t believe him to be motivated by personal greed. Ginn pointed to other politicians who’ve sought power and simultaneously become wealthy.
While Trump’s claims about being self-made have been proven false, his appeal to Latino voters like Ginn confirms something that political scientists have noted for years – that while Democrats have historically won the majority of Latino votes in presidential elections, that margin has been narrowing since 2016. And recently polling by The New York Times shows Trump has a 6-point lead among Latino voters, a significant shift since Joe Biden won 60 percent of their votes in 2020.
That shift reflects the increasing generational and ethnic diversity within American Hispanic communities, said Maria Echaveste, who served as a senior policy official during the Clinton administration and now serves on the board of Mi Familia Vota, a Latino-focused civic engagement organization. The Democratic Party has been slow to recognize the nuance within Latino communities, she said, and slow to try to win more Latino votes.
Latinos will make up almost 15 percent of all eligible voters during the 2024 presidential election, but have been largely overlooked as swing voters in recent years, Echaveste said. Democratic leaders have erroneously considered them a monolithic voting bloc.
“They have very incorrectly assumed that Latinos only care about immigration. And that's just not true,” Echaveste said, explaining that most are more concerned about jobs, taxes and the economy when it’s time to vote.
That feeling is true for Ginn.
“Nothing is free in this life,” she told me. “Somebody has to pay for everything,” like health care for illegal immigrants, something that falls in line with Ginn’s deeply held Christian beliefs. But U.S. taxpayers, particularly small-business owners like her, are already taxed enough and shouldn’t foot the bill for more free health care, she said. While she wants to see the border improved, the cost of gas is her most pressing priority. Ginn makes the 40-minute commute three to four times a week to sell her earrings, all handmade without molds, to tourists.
Ginn does not support undocumented immigration. It was difficult for her to gain her citizenship, even though she arrived in the U.S. with a fiancee visa, after two years of dating her now-husband. She had since spent years and at least $2,000 trying to get her mother approved for legal immigration from Colombia, where she still lives.
Ginn is drawn to the Republican Party’s conservative values, including tighter borders, lower taxes and a focus on small businesses. Those characteristics have been attractive to much of the Latino community for decades, said Melissa Michelson, a political science professor at Menlo College whose work has focused on Latino voters, who noted that Latino voters have a long history of supporting Republicans.
“The idea that Democrats have recently been losing Latinos to the Republican Party reflects a fairly short-term perspective,” Michelson said. “It’s true that a much larger proportion of Latino voters voted for Obama than voted for Clinton or Biden. But if you rewind a little more, you'll notice that George W. Bush won 40 percent of the Latino vote in 2004, and Ronald Reagan won 35 percent of the Latino vote in 1988.”
Much of Democrats’ false assurance stems from the 2008 election, after which Democrats interpreted Latino voters’ strong support for Obama as a more permanent shift.
“Latinos who voted for a Democrat when it was Obama are now returning to their more Republican perspectives,” Michelson said. “I think it was just a unique situation of the Obama campaign that attracted more Latinos than usual into a multiracial coalition.”
Ginn said while she’s a fervent supporter of Trump, she would have preferred to see South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott or Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis as the Republican nominee. She’s not a fan of former South Carolian Gov. Nikki Haley, who recently lost her home-state primary to Trump and suspended her campaign following additional losses on Super Tuesday, because Ginn believes Haley has betrayed the party by running against her former boss. (Haley served as Trump’s ambassador to the United Nations.)
As for Trump, Ginn believes his false claims that he won in 2020, placing her in the target audience for the Congressional Hispanic Caucus effort to combat Trump’s lies.
Naturalized citizens like Ginn made up one in 10 voters in 2020, according to the Pew Research Center, making political outreach efforts on both sides all the more important.
In each of five states, the number of immigrants who became citizens between 2016 and 2020 was greater than the state’s margin of victory in 2020.
During a lull at the City Market, Ginn took a break from finishing a pair of earrings to share a video of her February 2020 citizen ceremony. Her co-workers at the Charleston County Consolidated 9-1-1 Center presented her with an American flag. She described the ceremony as one of the most meaningful moments in her life.
She considers herself an example of the American dream, having immigrated to the United States and successfully started her own business. “Trump wants to save the nation,” she said. Her only savior is Jesus, Ginn said. But Trump isn’t far behind.




















U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally at Pinnacle Bank Expo Center on the Nebraska State Fairgrounds on October 05, 2026 in Grand Island, Nebraska.
The President Invited Iran to Bomb My Home
I was driving home to San Diego from Los Angeles on Monday night when I heard that the President of the United States had offered both cities up to Iran as bomb targets. At a rally in Nebraska, defending his war, Trump told the crowd, “let [Iran] take out Los Angeles, let ‘em take out San Diego.” It was, he said, “a very small price to pay.”
I was coming from a Bernie Sanders rally for Proposition 40, the one-time tax on California billionaires that would send 90% of its revenue to healthcare. We desperately need it to pass because, in order to give tax breaks to billionaires, Trump signed a law that will strip health coverage from 10 million Americans; this tax will make sure we can still cover Californians. Call me crazy, but I think taxing billionaires one time so we can make sure kids in California get to see a doctor is a very small price to pay. I also think that even if Trump were joking, it is indefensible to make jokes about the potential destruction of so many lives. Human life is never a small price to pay. Human life is priceless.
Plus, the reality is: here in San Diego, we’re already paying the price for Trump’s actions, and it’s not small at all. He has gutted FEMA, tried to kill climate resiliency programs, and destroyed public health standards, while his signature law is set to cut off health insurance and food support for hundreds of thousands of San Diegans. Like plenty of American cities, San Diego is already busy finding local solutions to respond to the problems this president has recklessly created.
Not to mention, at least 19 American service members have been killed in this war already. Human rights monitors have documented more than 3,600 dead in Iran by April alone. Here at home, gas is sitting just pennies below its all-time record. Taxpayers have already spent more than $45 billion on the war, while Trump’s oil and gas portfolio has grown by roughly $15.5 million this year alone. Of course anything is a “small price” to someone paying free.99 for this war, and profiting from it. Meanwhile, We the People are paying twice: first for the war, and then for the consequences of that war. But now he wants San Diego to pay a third time, flippantly offering us up to Iran.
It is worth noticing which cities he thought to name. Were San Diego and Los Angeles strategically chosen to signify something to his audience, or were they simply the first cities that came to mind as expendable places? Either way, the effect is to normalize—-and to gauge a crowd’s reaction to–the idea of massive violence in major California cities, suitable targets because of their perceived liberal lean. So what if Iran needs to bomb a little bit of America before the war can be over? Who cares, says Trump, if they target Los Angeles and San Diego?
By the way, why didn’t he offer up San Francisco, the free-love hippie-town MAGA loves to hate (and also my birthplace)? Could it be because that’s where the tech titans live? The same ones who joined Trump for Xi Jinping’s state dinner, a guest list worth a combined $2.4 trillion?
San Diego may have fewer billionaires, but it is home to more than 115,000 active-duty service members and 230,000 veterans. One in six active-duty sailors–in the entire Navy–is stationed here. So is one in four Marines. You cannot throw a rock in this county without hitting a military family: brats and spouses and veterans are among us. I got out of the Navy last year after ten years, and eight of those were here in San Diego. When Trump says “let ‘em take out San Diego,” he’s talking about the backbone of the United States military. He’s also talking about the people fighting his war.
San Diego has not been watching this war from the sidelines. Today, the USS Abraham Lincoln returns to North Island after an almost yearlong deployment to the Middle East that featured food shortages, broken toilets, and mold in the showers after 286 days at sea without a single port call. Eight sailors in the Lincoln’s strike group attempted suicide, but in August, when a reporter asked whether the deployment had gone on too long, Trump said “not nearly long enough.” Now he has told a crowd in Nebraska that we should let Iran take out the city those sailors call home. These are sociopathic sentiments.
Last week at Quantico, Pete Hegseth closed his address to the force by telling them, “President Trump has your back and so do I.” To the contrary, President Trump has put one of the biggest military towns in the country forward as a target for our adversaries. With friends like these, the “domestic” in “against all enemies, foreign and domestic” starts to sound a lot less hypothetical.
San Diego is home to Naval Air Station North Island, Naval Base San Diego, Naval Amphibious Base Coronado, the Point Loma submarine base, Camp Pendleton, and Miramar (and I have been permanently stationed at or trained at all of them). If Iran bombed San Diego and Los Angeles, aside from the devastating loss of life, it would cripple an immense share of our national security readiness.
And for what, exactly? Trump says the war is “essentially almost over with.” This is the same man who claimed in June 2025 that Iran’s nuclear program had been “obliterated,” then launched a war over it anyway on February 28. More than seven months later, he wants us to believe two things at once: that we’ve basically won, and that we might need to sacrifice an American city or two to finish winning. If the war is almost over, why does anybody need to take out San Diego?
I wonder if Trump’s endorsed candidate for California’s 48th District here in San Diego County will respond to these remarks. He recently said “no pain, no gain,” when referring to the gas prices San Diegans are paying. Jim Desmond, would you apply that same mindset if we were bombed? Or do you have the moral courage to stand up for the people you’re running to represent?
Last November, six Democratic members of Congress, all veterans, including Senator Mark Kelly, recorded a video reminding troops of their duty to disobey unlawful orders, restating the law that says so. Trump called it “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH,” and then his Justice Department went looking for an indictment, which a grand jury refused. The president treated reading the law out loud to the troops as a capital offense, but then he himself invited a foreign enemy to destroy two American cities, possibly as a punchline. Is anyone calling the latter sedition? Who is demanding accountability?
Calling our lives a small price to pay affirms a moral bankruptcy, as well as an obvious dereliction of duty to the office he holds. While we can’t impeach him or invoke the 25th Amendment ourselves, we must stop being so quiet about what we’re paying already. We can make our voices heard by calling our representatives, writing op-eds, knocking doors, phone banking, and voting in defiance of the man who threatens the safety of our city. Ballots are already arriving in mailboxes. Vote, and vote yes on 40 (and no on 41 and 42).
Trump has been harming our cities for a while, but now he is inviting our military adversaries to join him in the harm. If we have any self-respect as Americans, we must not tolerate our leaders disregarding the dignity of lives in this way. We must fight for our home.
Julie Roland was a Naval Officer for ten years, deploying to both the South China Sea and the Persian Gulf as a helicopter pilot before separating in June 2025 as a Lieutenant Commander. She has a law degree from the University of San Diego, a Master of Laws from Columbia University, and is a member of the Truman National Security Project.