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 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.