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.
U.S. President Donald Trump delivers the State of the Union address during a joint session of Congress in the House Chamber at the Capitol on Feb. 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Trump delivered his address days after the Supreme Court struck down the administration's tariff strategy, and amid a U.S. military buildup in the Persian Gulf threatening Iran.
Some MAGA loyalists have turned on Trump. Why the rest haven’t
I recently watched "A Face in the Crowd" for the umpteenth time.
I had a better reason than procrastination to rewatch Elia Kazan’s brilliant 1957 film exploring populism in the television age. It was homework. I was asked to discuss it with Turner Classic Movies host Ben Mankiewicz at the just-concluded TCM Film Festival in Los Angeles. As a pundit and an author, I do a lot of public speaking. But I don’t really do a lot of cool public speaking, so this was a treat.
With that not-very-humble brag out of the way, I had a depressing realization watching it this time.
"A Face in the Crowd" tells the story of a charming drifter with a dark side named Larry “Lonesome” Rhodes, played brilliantly by Andy Griffith. A singer with the gift of the gab, Rhodes takes off on radio but quickly segues to the brand-new medium of television. He becomes a national sensation — and political kingmaker — by forming a deep connection with the masses, particularly among the rural and working classes. His core audience is made up of people with grievances. “Everybody that’s got to jump when somebody else blows the whistle,” as Rhodes puts it.
The film’s climax (spoiler alert) comes when Rhodes’ manager and spurned lover, Marcia, turns on the microphone while the credits rolled at the end of “Cracker Barrel,” his national TV show. Rhodes tells his entourage what he really thinks of the “morons” in his audience. “Shucks, I can take chicken fertilizer and sell it to them for caviar. I can make them eat dog food, and they’ll think it’s steak. … Good night, you stupid idiots.”
It was a canonical “hot mic” moment in American cinema. But the idea that if people could glimpse the “real person” behind the popular facade, they’d turn on them is a very old theme in literature — think Pierre Choderlos de Laclos’ "Les Liaisons Dangereuses" (1782) or Richard Brinsley Sheridan’s "The School for Scandal" (1777), in which diaries and letters do the work of microphones.
Kazan and screenwriter Budd Schulberg were very worried about the ability of demagogues to whip up populist fervor and manipulate the masses through the power of TV, in part because everyone had already seen it happen with radio and film, by Father Coughlin in America and Hitler in Germany. But as dark as their vision was, they still clung to the idea that if the demagogue was exposed, the people would instantly turn on their leader in an “Emperor’s New Clothes” moment for the mass media age.
And that’s the source of my depressing realization. I think they were wrong. It turns out that once that organic connection is made, even a shocking revelation of the truth won’t necessarily break the spell.
In 2016, a lot of writers revisited "A Face in the Crowd" to understand the Trump phenomenon. After all, here was a guy who used a TV show — "The Apprentice" — and social media to build a massive following, going over the heads of the “establishment.” Trump’s own hot mic moment with "Access Hollywood," in which he boasted of his sexual predations, proved insufficient to undo him. That was hardly the only such moment for him. We’ve heard Trump bully the Georgia secretary of state to “find 11,780 votes.” He told Bob Woodward he deliberately “played down” COVID-19. After leaving office, he was recorded telling aides he shouldn’t be sharing classified documents with them — then doing it anyway. And so on.
Trump’s famous claim that he could “shoot somebody” on Fifth Avenue and not lose any voters may have been hyperbole. But it’s not crazy to think he wouldn’t lose as many voters as he should.
In the film, Lonesome Rhodes implodes when Americans encounter his off-air persona. The key to Trump’s success is that he ran as his off-air persona. Why people love that persona is a complicated question. Among the many complementary explanations is that he comes across as authentic, and some people value authenticity more than they value good character, honesty, or competence.
This is not just a problem for Republicans. Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner once had a Nazi tattoo and has said things about women as distasteful as Trump’s “grab them by (the genitals)” comments, and the Democratic establishment is rallying around him because he’s authentic — and because Democrats want to win that race.
Many prominent MAGA loyalists are turning on Trump these days. They claim — wrongly in my opinion — that he’s changed and that the Iran war is a betrayal of their cause. But if you look at the polls, voters who describe themselves as “MAGA” still overwhelmingly support Trump. In short, he still has the Fifth Avenue voters on his side.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.