After a year spent writing columns about President Donald Trump, a leader who seems intent on testing every norm, value, and standard of decency that supports our democracy, I finally did what any responsible citizen might do: I went to the doctor to see if I had "Trump Derangement Syndrome."
I told my doctor about my symptoms: constant worry about cruelty in public life, repeated anger at attacks on democratic institutions, and deep anxiety over leaders who treat Americans as props or enemies. After running tests, he gave me his diagnosis with a straight face: "You are, indeed, highly focused on abnormal behavior. But standing up for what is right is excellent for your health and essential for the health of the country."
With my doctor’s approval, I’ve collected a few short excerpts from the pieces I wrote this year, ranging from Trump’s comments about Rob Reiner’s death to the dehumanizing idea of the so-called "Gold Card" for immigrants. Each situation is different, but they all have one thing in common: treating people as props, enemies, or punchlines instead of citizens who deserve dignity.
To illustrate how these themes have surfaced throughout the year, I’ve gathered several of my 2025 columns below. Each examines a different moment, yet together they reveal a consistent pattern in the public conduct I’ve been tracking. The headlines and links offer a clear record of how these episodes unfolded and why they raised concerns about how citizens are spoken to and treated.
- Ukraine, Russia, and the Dangerous Metaphor of Holding the Cards
- Trump’s Rob Reiner Post Sparks Rare GOP Backlashrump’s Rob Reiner Post Sparks Rare GOP Backlash
- Trump’s Ultimatums and the Erosion of Presidential Credibility
- Chaos Theory Meets Trump: Why America’s Institutions and Psyche Are Under Siege
- From ‘Obliteration’ to ‘Enemies Within’: Trump’s Language Echoes Authoritarianism
- Without Compassion, America Will Never Be Great
- Reactions to: "This is not how a global leader behaves"
Back in February, Kristina Becvar and I wrote a column in The Fulcrum that described a dilemma this piece brings back into focus:
“Our challenge as a publication, dedicated to keeping our readers informed so we can repair our democracy and make it live and work in our everyday lives, is not to be overly reactive or partisan. At the same time, we must not ignore the dangers of the administration’s degrading, hostile, and accusatory language and dangerous actions when they occur, while also acknowledging inappropriate responses when they occur.”
We concluded that it is all too easy to react to President Trump’s behavior. But if we only do that, we risk losing sight of The Fulcrum’s mission. We invite you to help us make The Fulcrum a place where people inside and outside politics can learn, meet, talk, and work together to repair our democracy and make it part of daily life.
We work toward that mission by:
- Looking at news stories with an open mind and healthy skepticism, and aiming to show a wide range of viewpoints through careful research and critical thinking.
- Doing our best to keep personal bias out of our reporting, and seeking out different perspectives in both our news coverage and our choice of opinion pieces.
- Making sure all the information we publish is accurate and credible, including following the best practice of having at least two independent on-the-record sources (one can be a document) before we publish any controversial facts.
- We reject accusations, rumors, and misinformation that attack any group or party. The Fulcrum aims for a higher standard of conversation and understanding, based on civil dialogue, critical thinking, and personal responsibility.
- We stand for intellectual honesty and are transparent whenever our reporting or commentary connects to work related to the Bridge Alliance Education Fund, which publishes The Fulcrum.
Sticking to this mission while also calling out dangerous language from the administration is a tough balancing act. It’s possible to strongly criticize harmful words or actions and still admit that some concerns may have a bit of truth. Finding that truth and sharing it responsibly is one of our main goals.
With that mission in mind, I share these examples of how our President has repeatedly gone against the principles of freedom, trust, and honorable success. If that means I have "Trump Derangement Syndrome," I accept it. And if standing up for truth, reason, civility, and the dignity of every person, no matter their background, means The Fulcrum is labeled with this so-called syndrome, we’ll wear it proudly.
The real danger isn’t that some people speak out too loudly about indecency. The real danger is that too many have become numb to it. This numbness manifests in alarming ways: voter participation dwindles as people lose faith in the power of their voice; important policies stall because collective advocacy wavers; and the erosion of moral accountability quietly gains ground. It’s this passive acceptance of the unacceptable that poses the gravest threat to our democracy.
In the words of President Ronald Reagan: “This Nation must remain and will remain a beacon of hope for all who strive for human dignity.” And again: “We will be the exemplar of freedom and a beacon of hope for those who do not now have freedom.”
As we begin a new year, my hope is simple: that readers of this column take a moment to consider what they can do in 2026 to strengthen the democratic principles they value. Imagine what might happen if you committed just one hour a month to exploring a viewpoint fundamentally different from your own—and then sought out a respectful conversation with someone who holds that perspective. Or consider joining a local organization dedicated to bridge‑building in your community, offering your time, your skills, or simply your willingness to listen. These are small but meaningful ways to turn concern into action, and to help ensure that America grows stronger through the shared efforts of people across the political spectrum.
Democracy is not a spectator sport. It asks something of each of us. If we choose to remain on the sidelines in 2026, we risk losing our influence over decisions that affect our daily lives and the future of our communities. The absence of active participation may lead to policies that do not reflect our collective values, gradually eroding the very freedoms we cherish. So let us make a collective pledge to do our part: to engage, to learn, to show up, and to help ensure that our nation remains, in President Reagan's words, a beacon of hope for all who strive for human dignity. By committing to active involvement, we not only preserve our democracy but also strengthen it, securing a better future for generations to come.
David Nevins is the publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
A golden tray sits on the Resolute Desk as President Donald Trump speaks during an announcement on American nuclear innovation in the Oval Office at the White House on July 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Trump is signing multiple executive orders targeting the nuclear energy sector and easing rules for new reactors and nuclear fuel supply chains.
Trump’s hubris rivals the fallen heroes of ancient Greek mythology
In January, the New York Times asked President Donald Trump if there were any limits on his global powers.
“Yeah,” the president responded, “there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
That was eight months ago, but fortunately Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster adaptation of “The Odyssey” has made ancient Greek literature newly relevant. Before that window closes, I’d like to talk about hubris.
Today, the term mostly means excessive pride or arrogance. That’s part of what the Greeks meant by it too, but the meaning was a bit richer and more specific. Hubris was an insolent or outrageous act that offended the gods, often because the transgressor was claiming abilities or authorities that solely belonged to supreme beings.
Nolan renamed and slightly modified the concept of xenia for the film, calling it “Zeus’ law.” In the director’s telling, mortals should follow the rules laid out by the gods, specifically the requirement to treat strangers with respect lest they be gods in disguise.
In a sense, hubris is the opposite, or at least the rejection, of xenia. The hubris of the suitors, and at times Odysseus himself, invites punishment by the gods and their mortal instruments.
Which brings me back to Donald Trump. His claim that there are no constraints on his personal power to dictate events on the global stage was one of the greatest expressions of hubris ever uttered by a political leader.
Trump’s claim was obviously false when he made it.
He vowed that he could end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours. He’s proved powerless to make that happen. If he had divine powers to work his will, why would he have balked at implementing his tariffs so often that Wall Street adopted the “TACO trade” term for his deals? “TACO” stands for “Trump always chickens out.”
And why would Trump have made so many embarrassing concessions to China — from rescinding tariffs on Chinese goods to allowing them to buy crucial and incredibly valuable computer chips?
But Trump saw his success at capturing Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro as proof of his ability to launch missiles to the same effect as Zeus’ lightning bolts. Trump believed he was the most powerful man who ever lived.
This is no exaggeration. In March, when the Iran invasion seemed successful, Trump gave a document penned by“Presidential Historian David King” to New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan purporting to prove that Trump was “the most powerful person to have EVER walked this planet.” King was, in fact, a businessman and occasional caddy for legendary golfer Gary Player.
King compared Trump favorably to many of history’s most powerful, and often heinous, figures: Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, William the Conqueror, Napoleon Bonaparte, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. Many of these men thought they were the most powerful person in the world, too. And many were defeated precisely because they believed it.
At least Napoleon and Hitler had a string of truly impressive victories before they learned the folly of hubris. The limits on Trump’s power have been exposed by far less august forces than the combined might of the allies in World War II or the fearsome Russian winter.
Iran is a comparatively middling power. But the regime’s ability to absorb punishment while imposing its will on the Strait of Hormuz has proved to be a greater constraint on Trump’s power than his morality or mind. We should note that, at least rhetorically, his morality has not proved much of a constraint. He has repeatedly promised to destroy Iranian “civilization” if the regime refuses to capitulate.
But they haven’t — and won’t anytime soon — because the regime’s tolerance for pain far outstrips Trump’s. The combined fear of skyrocketing oil prices, outrage of Gulf state potentates, diminishing weapon supplies and domestic unpopularity is doing the work that international law, congressional oversight and the collective opinion of foreign policy experts can’t or won’t do.
If I considered Trump more heroic than reason and facts could allow, I would say his Sisyphean predicament has the whiff of Greek tragedy to it. Trump is vexed by the fact that the Iranians won’t honor deals or ratify his countless premature claims of victory — giving new meaning to his vow that his presidency would make people tired of winning. It’s almost like they’re out-Trumping Trump.
Things might have gone better if he’d heeded that great Greek tragedian Sophocles: “For Zeus utterly abhors the boasts of a proud tongue.”
____
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.