McElravy is an associate professor of leadership at the University of Nebraska and a member of Scholars Strategy Network.
Gov. Jim Pillen’s recent decision to accept $18 million in federal funds for the state’s summer food program demonstrates the type of leadership rural Nebraskans are demanding from our state’s political leaders. As the Nebraska legislative session unfolds, our state leaders should follow in his steps and continue to compromise and find common ground.
In the most recent Nebraska Rural Poll, 86 percent of respondents agree or strongly agree that “compromise and common ground should be a goal for state political leaders.” However, given the polarized political environment across Nebraska and the country, there is political risk in changing course after taking a stance, referred to as flip-flopping, because politicians may be seen as incompetent. The courage to change course after initially refusing to apply for the summer food funding should be called out and applauded because this is the type of leadership that rural Nebraskans want to see from leaders.
Specifically, the governor’s actions seem to represent “ Both/And ” leadership, which requires that people recognize the complexity of issues and the tensions associated with different points of view. Those engaging in Both/And leadership will work to bridge the gaps in perspectives to find solutions that accommodate multiple stakeholders.
In this case, the governor was able to balance his stance of not supporting welfare while also meeting the needs of kids across the state, earning bipartisan praise for his efforts. Thanks to his decision, an estimated 150,000 kids will consistently have food on the table this summer.
Importantly, this type of leadership is not an individual endeavor and underscores the need to shift focus away from leaders and toward the broader idea of leadership. When we limit our focus to individual leaders, we ignore the reality that leadership is a process, involving leaders, followers and situational context.
A letter sent to the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services by a bipartisan group of legislators in December, urging the executive branch to apply for this type of funding, illustrates the role of “followers,” or those not directly involved in the executive decision. By openly articulating their stance and providing clarity on the potential impact of the decision, they provided critical information to facilitate a more nuanced decision-making process. These legislators demonstrated courage to work across political boundaries, and these efforts, too, should be applauded as part of the leadership process.
Unfortunately, it seems all too often we retreat to political strongholds. Other data in the Nebraska Rural Poll demonstrated how polarized civil discourse feels today.
When asked, “Do you think Americans are more divided over politics than they were 10 years ago, less divided or are they about the same?” 94 percent of respondents indicated they thought we are much more or more divided today. That level of agreement on any topic is surprising.
A potential bright spot did emerge from the poll. Specifically, rural Nebraskans have significantly more faith that Nebraska’s political leaders will overcome differences to get things done at least moderately well (40 percent of respondents) than national political leaders (9 percent of respondents).
In 2021, both metropolitan and rural Nebraskans expressed moderate levels of confidence in the governor and the state Legislature in the Rural and Metro polls. It seems encouraging when collaboration and common ground can be established across these branches of government, and it may help improve confidence in these institutions.
The emerging hope is that more effective and efficient decisions lie ahead. Building trust takes time and effort, and perhaps the governor’s recent decision can serve as a foundation for trusting relationships that can facilitate more effective collaborations.
Nebraska is a big, diverse state with a variety of priorities. The’s state political leaders are charged with helping facilitate a prosperous future for all Nebraskans. To that end, our political leadership should continue to engage in compromise and common ground. It’s what constituents want, and our state will be best served by these efforts.
This article was first published in the Nebraska Examiner on March 6.
Ben Droz
Ben Droz
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.