Molineaux is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and president/CEO of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
A mentor and teacher commented, “Humans regulate other humans.” This came on the heels of a few days of mild depression, where I chose to numb out and turn off the world; I was alone and without accountability to others. I had moved from respite to wallowing, and these few words called me back to my normally determined self. The idea that “humans regulate other humans” registered for me on several levels: mental, emotional and physical.
First, while I was numbing out, I watched a documentary on cults. Research has documented that we are most at risk of being radicalized into extremism or cults when we lose our sense of self; this is often preceded by feeling lonely, depressed, powerless and lacking a sense of meaning. Into this void of identity steps someone who seeks to exploit others in their most vulnerable moments. Only other people can intercede, offering hope of a better future and a sense of belonging. “Humans regulate other humans” hit this squarely. Unfortunately friends and loved ones are often ill equipped to offer connection, support, sympathy or understanding. Instead, offering rejection and ridicule which only serves to drive our loved ones further into the arms of the exploiters.
Second, our human bodies are neurologically wired for connection to each other and nature. Walking in the forest or on the beach offers me a sense of wonder and connection to something greater than myself. Scientifically, the fewer connections we have, the sooner we die. When we are alone, our thoughts recycle and with each cycle, our thinking often becomes more perverted due to lack of community sense-making. Mentally and emotionally, we are our strongest in the arms of a healthy community.
Third, when we are in a community, cultural norms ensure the survival of the community. They regulate how we live together for the collective’s sake, not the individual. In the United States, we enshrined this in our Constitution and subsequent rule of law. This is the cultural norm we share, above all others. Or at least, we used to. Humans regulate other humans, right?
Today, competing groups of citizens are claiming the rule of law means different things to them. One group claims the rule of law for all people, challenging inequities and abuse of power. Another group claims rule of law has been corrupted by the ruling class, and it is up to citizens to set it right. I agree with both claims. Corruption is rampant and the rule of law must be challenged for its failures to treat all people equally.
Here is our catch-22 in all its glory. We haven’t yet imagined a set of cultural and social norms that is truly inclusive of our rich diversity. So we judge harshly and fight about cultural norms, trying to force others into what is most comfortable for us. And as we focus on the fight, we turn off our imagination, just when we need it most.
The pandemic has radically changed our sense of safety in the world, as has our political climate, extreme weather conditions and social unrest. Everything we thought was predictable is being stripped away so we can create anew. It can be exhilarating instead of terrifying if our imagination is not stifled by the harshness of the fight around us.
A close friend quipped to me recently, “I’m so tired of being resilient.” As we spent more time together, I found her assigning intent to others for actions she found objectionable. “How can they be so gullible?” or “They are just followers, not able to think for themselves,” she would state. When I offered other possible interpretations, she took exception that I was “making excuses for them.” I had a choice to make. I had more knowledge of intentions due to the diversity of my friends group and work life. But the norms of our relationship has always been to avoid conflict, and that was the direction we were heading.
I chose to stop offering alternative explanations that challenged her “knowing.” Should I have? Was I really being helpful by avoiding the discomfort of our times? Like many of us, she is exhausted by our social upheaval and the implications on her life. I chose not to add more uncertainty or hardship. I made the best decision based on norms and compassion, but wish I had found a way to respond that didn’t require one of us shutting down part of who we are.
We’ve been through a lot in the last few years. Like our ancestors who endured the pandemic 100 years ago, two world wars, a financial crisis and extreme weather, we will survive. And out of our trials, we will find a social cohesion that transcends our troubles and is the best we can imagine for ourselves. Let’s start with compassion, kindness and imagining a better future that allows us the freedom to be who we are, within our community.




















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.