As co-publisher of The Fulcrum, Debilyn Molineaux's name is synonymous with cross-partisan bridge building and the importance of civil dialogue in a democratic society. In this episode of How to Win Friends and Save the Republic from the National Association of Nonpartisan Reformers, Debilyn discusses her path from advertising to being a candidate for public office to co-founding some of the most influential bridging organizations in the democracy ecosystem.
Faded American flag
Remember when loyalty oaths were used to ferret out and punish people suspected of being Communists? They were a potent and terrifying tool, designed to produce conformity and compliance at the height of the late 1940s, early 1950s Red Scare.
Today, they are back, but in more subtle, if no less coercive, forms. The Trump Administration is using them in hiring and retaining federal employees, in dispensing federal grants, and in passing out perks.
Earlier this month, Politico reported that “More than a dozen high-ranking officials across the administration have been forced to leave their jobs or had their nominations or promotions derailed in the first six months of Trump’s return to Washington. Nearly all of the ousters have come after individuals were targeted by outside allies who convinced the president that they weren’t sufficiently loyal.”
Conservative activist and Trump whisperer Laura Loomer has encouraged people throughout the federal government to report on others who seem insufficiently loyal to the president and his agenda. She says that she is “happy to take people’s tips about disloyal appointees, disloyal staffers and Biden holdovers…And I guess you could say that my tip line has come to serve as a form of therapy for Trump administration officials who want to expose their colleagues who should not be in the positions that they’re in.”
ABC News offers the following example of one of the ways Loomer works. “In mid-July,” it says “far-right activist Laura Loomer fired off a lengthy post on X targeting a senior Customs and Border Protection official (Monte Hawkins), accusing him of having ‘Anti-Trump, pro-Open Borders, and Pro-DEI Bias,’ and demanding his removal from the federal government.”
“Less than 48 hours later,” ABC notes, “after also sending an appeal directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Loomer says an official personally contacted her, thanked her for amplifying the information, and later informed her that Hawkins had been removed.”
Loyalty tests, secret informants, anonymous tips, welcome to the world that the Trump Administration has brought back to life. In this world, fear replaces freedom, whether it is in school, workplaces, or political organizations.
Last May, the federal government’s Office of Personnel Management (OPM) provided a vivid example of the administration’s approach to loyalty tests. It mandated that “all [f]ederal job vacancy announcements graded at GS-05 or above will include four short, free-response essay questions,” including one that asked: “How would you help advance the President’s Executive Orders and policy priorities in this role? Identify one or two relevant policy Executive Orders or policy initiatives that are significant to you, and explain how you would help implement them if hired.”
“Applicants,” OPM said, “will be required to certify that they are using their own words, and did not use a consultant or AI (such as a large language model [LLM]). To reduce the burden on candidates, the responses cannot exceed 200 words per question.”
Asking people to show their loyalty to the president’s executive orders, as Jacque Simon, public policy director for the American Federation of Government Employees, noted at the time the OPM issued its directive is “a glaring violation of merit principles and seems practically Maoist…Glorification of a political leader cannot be a prerequisite for obtaining a federal job. Even at its most benign, requiring candidates to muse positively about Donald Trump’s EOs and policies is contrary to everything the apolitical civil service stands for.”
In late June, OPM retreated a little. It issued new guidance about the use of the four questions, including the one about the president’s executive orders.
OPM told federal agencies that they should continue to ask them as part of the hiring process, but they should include the following disclaimer: “The following four narrative questions provide an opportunity for you to highlight your dedication to public service for the hiring manager and agency leadership (or designee(s)). While your responses are not required and will not be scored, we encourage you to thoughtfully address each question.”
As the expression goes, “A rose by any other name is still a rose.” Anyone wanting a job in the administration will surely take advantage of that “opportunity”
And if that were not enough to signal the revival of loyalty tests, since January 20, many recipients of federal grants have been notified that their grants were being terminated in order to allow government agencies to repurpose their funding allocations to advance the President’s agenda. For example, National Endowment of the Arts grantees were told, "The NEA is updating its grantmaking policy priorities to focus funding on projects that reflect the nation's rich artistic heritage and creativity as prioritized by the President. Consequently, we are terminating awards that fall outside these new priorities."
Now it’s true that the administration has not rolled out loyalty oaths for federal employees, grant recipients, or ordinary citizens. Not yet.
But ss law professors Erwin Chemerinsky and Catherine Fisk point out, “No modern presidential administration has undertaken such an effort to staff the entire government with political loyalists. It is plainly inconsistent with good government, with federal law, and with the Constitution.”
And it is clear that in the world the president is creating, implicit loyalty oaths are very much the order of the day. As I noted at the start, we’ve seen this act before.
In 1947, President Harry Truman issued an Executive Order entitled “PRESCRIBING PROCEDURES FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF AN EMPLOYEES LOYALTY PROGRAM IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT.” That order asserted that it “is of vital importance that persons employed in the Federal service be of complete and unswerving loyalty to the United States” and that “the presence within the Government service of any disloyal or subversive person constitutes a threat to our democratic processes….”
Like a Laura Loomer looking for tips, Truman’s program was justified as necessary to afford “maximum protection….(to) the United States against infiltration of disloyal persons into the ranks of its employees.” To accomplish that goal, it required “a loyalty investigation of every person entering the civilian employment of any department or agency of the executive branch of the Federal Government.”
The Executive Order made clear that an applicant would be disqualified for “Membership in, affiliation with or sympathetic association with any foreign or domestic organization, association, movement, group or combination of persons, designated by the Attorney General as totalitarian, fascist, communist, or subversive….”
As pernicious as Truman’s loyalty test was, at least it focused on loyalty to the Constitution, not the president or his policy agenda. In the Trump era, that seems almost quaint.
At the time Truman launched his loyalty test program, Congressman Chester E. Holifield said, “It is only police states that desire the growth of fear in the hearts of their abject subjects. If we continue these practices, people will fear that their jobs will be jeopardized, or that their security will be threatened, or that they will be publicly attacked….”
“They will be afraid,” Holifield continued, “to express or to listen to any ideas, whether radical or conservative. These are the things, therefore, that we must guard against.” One of them is loyalty tests, which Holifield said “destroy democracy.”
What the congressman said almost eighty years ago is as relevant and important today as it has ever been.
In a true democracy, loyalty cannot be coerced or commanded. "Loyalty must,” as former Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black explained, “arise spontaneously from the hearts of people who love their country and respect their government."
Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College.
There’s a branch of mathematics and science known as chaos theory, which studies dynamical systems; systems that evolve according to specific rules, yet behave in ways that appear random or unpredictable. Despite being governed by deterministic laws, these systems can produce outcomes so sensitive to initial conditions that even the slightest change can dramatically alter their trajectory.
This concept, famously illustrated by the butterfly effect, suggests that a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil might set off a tornado in Texas. In other words, minute actions can trigger cascading consequences across complex systems. Chaos theory has long influenced fields like meteorology and economics, helping explain why markets react wildly to rumors or why weather forecasts become unreliable beyond a few days.
But its relevance extends far beyond science. In politics, social behavior, and civic systems, nonlinear dynamics shape institutions and public life. A single protest, viral post, or policy tweak can ignite large-scale societal shifts. The machinery of democracy, too, is vulnerable to these unpredictable forces.
Enter Donald Trump.
As president of the most powerful nation on Earth, Trump’s leadership style embodies the chaotic dynamics described by chaos theory. His presidency is a living case study in how unpredictability, disruption, and emergent leverage can reshape civic life—often with dangerously performative consequences.
In his bestselling book The Art of the Deal, Trump writes: “I never get too attached to one deal or one approach … I keep a lot of balls in the air.” This ethos—jumping from one issue to another, issuing executive orders in rapid succession—may seem erratic. Still, it’s grounded in a deliberate negotiating strategy. Trump thrives on instability, using it as both a tactic and a spectacle.
He elaborates: “Most deals fall out, no matter how promising they seem at first.” And when it comes to tackling complex, high-stakes issues, Trump offers this rationale: “I like thinking big. I always have. To me, it’s very simple: if you’re going to be thinking anyway, you might as well think big.”
While unsettling to world leaders and citizens seeking predictability, this style is quintessentially Trump. He doesn’t shy away from worst-case scenarios—he anticipates them, embraces them, and learns to live with them. This mindset mirrors a core tenet of chaos theory: minor missteps can spiral into significant consequences. But unlike a failed real estate deal, these consequences now affect millions of lives.
A 2020 academic article argues that The Art of the Deal reflects the “superficial chaos” of neoliberal capitalism—where spectacle, disruption, and asymmetry are normalized as strategic tools. Trump’s approach doesn’t model chaos theory in a scientific sense, but it weaponizes chaos as a performative and tactical aesthetic.
Yet beyond strategy, the emotional toll of this governing style is profound. When chaos becomes a principle of leadership rather than a scientific observation, democratic systems built on transparency, accountability, and deliberation begin to fracture. And so do the lives of those caught in the crosscurrents.
For many Americans, especially those directly affected by sweeping policy changes, there is a constant, gnawing sense of fear and uncertainty. Immigrants facing mass deportations, citizens confronting the suspension of due process, LGBTQ+ communities threatened with the rollback of hard-won rights, diversity programs dismantled, and hundreds of thousands of federal workers grappling with layoffs or the threat of them—all are navigating a landscape of heightened anxiety about their futures. The emotional distress among these groups is real, and it is growing.
But the ripple effects stretch far beyond traditionally marginalized communities.
Farmers, often seen as part of Trump’s base, are bearing heavy emotional burdens. The administration’s tariff battles have created market instability, slashed export opportunities, and driven up the cost of supplies. The unpredictable nature of Trump’s trade policies has left them feeling trapped between loyalty and economic survival—fueling frustration and fear in America’s agricultural heartland. Veterans, too, are grappling with a deep sense of betrayal. Under the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) initiative, sweeping layoffs gutted the Department of Veterans Affairs, eliminating over 80,000 jobs. These cuts have strained the system’s ability to provide healthcare, mental health services, and employment for former service members. This erosion of support has triggered new waves of anxiety, anger, and despair among those who served.
And the list goes on. Cuts to Medicaid and other healthcare supports threaten not just their children’s well-being but their families’ financial stability. Women, worried about rollbacks to reproductive rights and workplace protections, report rising levels of fear and activism fatigue. University administrators must navigate an increasingly volatile environment for free speech, affirmative action, and campus safety.
Trump’s confrontational leadership style adds another layer of stress nationwide. Studies cited in Psychology Today in 2020 pointed to a clear trend: the president’s combative, polarizing, and often personal rhetoric heightens emotional distress across the political spectrum. Americans are reporting increased levels of anxiety, anger, and political exhaustion. Many feel marginalized or unheard in a climate defined by conflict rather than dialogue. Those on the right have had their fears fueled; those on the left have been cast as targets. The rising emotional distress only deepens Trump’s populist appeal, amplified through escalating “us vs. them” rhetoric and violent vocabulary.
Suppose the chaos continues at this frenetic pace. In that case, the damage to the American psyche may rival the political changes. The butterfly effect, once a metaphor for natural complexity, should be a warning that small acts of chaos at the top can ripple outward, destabilizing the very foundations of our nation.
And perhaps the greatest danger is not the chaos itself, but our growing tolerance for it. When unpredictability becomes normalized, when emotional exhaustion dulls civic vigilance, and when spectacle replaces substance, democracy begins to erode.
The challenge is that we must not only understand chaos, but we must act to ensure it does not tarnish the soul of our nation. We must not allow it to corrode the democratic ideals that define us as a people.
David Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
U.S. President Donald Trump meets with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office at the White House on August 18, 2025 in Washington, DC.
When Donald Trump called into Fox and Friends on Tuesday August 19th and mused that "I want to try and get to heaven, if possible," citing his role in the Ukraine peace process as a potential ticket upward, he offered far more than a personal aside.
It exposed the ethos of the man where redemption is transactional, compassion is conditional, and leadership is measured not by empathy but by negotiating oneself to heaven.
None of this should be a surprise to anyone who has watched him for over a decade. Trump's reflection is devoid of empathy and displays a total lack of caring or emotion. The reflection is more about himself and his values of personal gain and perhaps even management of his reputation; for what would people think if he didn't go to heaven?
This moment invites deeper scrutiny:
Trump's framing of "if I can get to heaven, this will be one of the reasons" is in many ways similar to his general approach to life as a transaction. The statement suggests a quid pro quo approach to virtue. His behavior is in shocking contrast to the traditional American virtue of moral leadership rooted in empathy, sacrifice, and care for others.
So many thoughts come to mind as one tries to wrap one's head around Trump's desire to go to heaven. When I hear him speak of his desire to "save 7,000 people a week" by bringing peace in Ukraine, I see this more as a marketing ploy to use compassion as a tool, given how he shows no signs of compassion on the domestic front on issues of immigration, public health, or racial justice.
I see Trump playing a Ukraine peace deal as typical Donald Trump: an attempt to negotiate himself into heaven through geopolitical maneuvering. This reflection on Fox reveals a great deal about the broader ethos of Donald Trump. Who else would treat diplomacy, faith, and even redemption as negotiable assets?
Since surviving an assassination attempt, Trump has adopted a more overtly religious tone. Of course, given Trump's propensity to brand everything, it is not unreasonable to question whether this was a genuine transformation or a strategic rebranding to shore up support from the religious right.
In a time when democratic institutions are at serious risk due to the actions of Donald Trump through polarization and performative politics, the character of leadership matters more than ever. Grand gestures or self-serving declarations do not measure authentic moral leadership. Still, instead, it is revealed in the honest expressions of caring and the capacity to see others not as props in a personal drama but as fellow Americans all deserving of dignity.
Trump's Fox and Friends reflection speaks to the man and should raise concerns about his leadership ability. Great leaders are not just strategists and management experts. They understand and feel the pulse of the nation they lead.
Contrast this with the legacy of leaders who understood peace not as a trophy to be used for personal gain. Mandela's long walk toward reconciliation, Carter's tireless diplomacy rooted in human rights, and King's call to love even in the face of hatred were a moral authority that did not stem from divine reward-seeking but from a radical commitment to justice, empathy, and shared humanity. For them, peacemaking was not a path to heaven but instead the essence of who they were as individuals.
As Americans reflect on this passing comment, we should reflect on what we see in the man. If redemption is merely a brand, and compassion a tool for leverage, then what becomes of the public trust? What becomes of the moral fabric that binds a pluralistic democracy together?
In a democracy, moral leadership must not be based on receiving divine reward systems or reduced to strategic branding. It must be lived, felt, and practiced in the public square, where empathy, accountability, and shared purpose shape the soul of our institutions.
New York Times columnist David Brooks once observed that “Trump’s behavior has aroused great moral indignation. It has aroused in people’s hearts a sense that something sacred is being trampled.” That indignation stems not merely from policy disagreements, but from a deeper unease, a sense that the soul of leadership itself is being hollowed out.
When compassion becomes a branding tool and redemption a strategic asset, we risk losing the moral compass that binds a pluralistic democracy. American leadership must address economic and financial conditions, but it must be rooted in empathy, integrity, and the courage to serve something greater than oneself.
Consider the moral compass citizens should expect from those in power and ask whether redemption without love can be redemptive. Authentic moral leadership begins not with off-the-cuff reflections on Fox and Friends, but with the courage to confront one's limitations and the heartfelt compassion and understanding that comes with the responsibility of leading a nation.
David Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
A busy city street with people walking and cars driving. The street is lined with buildings and has a crosswalk. Washington, DC
When I walk my toddler home from daycare every evening, it is safe. That's here in Washington, D.C., where I have lived since I moved to work on government accountability 15 years ago.
For perhaps the next 30 days, or longer, District of Columbia residents will be policed by federalized civilian and military officers, per an executive order and presidential memorandum this morning. The executive order directs the police to be federalized to protect "national monuments" (which are in the safest parts of D.C. thanks to the existing park police) and other federal properties, but the memorandum directs the DC National Guard to address crime throughout the capital.
There is no crime emergency here. I live here. I have seen things get better, not worse, with my own eyes. Violent crime is the lowest it has been in 30 years. Overall crime is down this year already. According to 2019 data, crime is worse in Houston and Indianapolis than here in D.C. Like all places, we have crime. I have seen that too. But not more than most.
D.C. is not just the capital district. It is one of the largest cities in the country. It's a great city. I love living here. 700,000 people live in D.C. — that's more than two whole states, Vermont and Wyoming. District residents paid $45 billion in federal taxes in 2024 — that's more than North Dakota, West Virginia, Wyoming, Alaska, and Vermont combined (and more than 21 other states individually).
How many votes do we have in Congress? None. We don't have any say in the federal laws that bind us. But that's not all. Arrests are already prosecuted by federal lawyers, not lawyers that work for the elected DC Attorney General. They enforce local laws that the District's Council has been blocked by Congress from updating.
There is a lot of taxation here and not a lot of representation.
Instead, politicians from far away cities with crime worse than ours use us for their own gain.
It's not enough that federal police officers already police many of the parks here (many of which are national parks), the area around the Capitol (which has its own federal police force), and White House grounds (which has the Secret Service). Now it might be our neighborhoods too. It will not make our communities safer, and it defies the American spirit of a government accountable to its people.
Joshua Tauberer is the founder of GovTrack.us and created the site initially as a hobby in 2004.
Don’t Federalize and Militarize DC’s Local Police was originally published by GovTrack.us and is republished with permission.
