Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Holding Trump Accountable: He’s NOT the Emperor

Holding Trump Accountable: He’s NOT the Emperor
shallow focus photography white crown hanging decor
Photo by Megan Watson on Unsplash

Publishers' Notes: 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 actions when they occur. We invite you to read this column outlining our editorial position covering the Trump administration by clicking HERE.

Not every column represents the editorial focus of the Fulcrum. However, consistent with our mission, the column below represents a commitment to sharing many perspectives to widen our readers' viewpoints.


“But he hasn’t got anything on!” said a little child. “The emperor has no clothes!”

In Hans Christian Andersen’s 1837 fairy tale, “The Emperor’s New Clothes” it takes an innocent child to declare what all those surrounding the emperor will not. That is the “magical” garments,” which only the brilliant and astute purportedly can see, do not exist. They are mere fabrications. But for fear of crossing the mighty ruler and being thought inept or stupid, the courtiers proclaim the beauty of the emperor’s non-existent clothing.

If we take the emperor’s “clothes” to mean the dignity and true power of the office of the Presidency, then indeed, Donald Trump is wearing no clothes. And his chief tailor, Elon Musk, has never sewn a stitch of diplomacy or practiced relational tactics in his life.

In the United States, we do not have an emperor, and despite the publication from the White House declaring otherwise, we do not have a king. We have a president, the head of the Executive branch, whose job is to execute the law. We have two other equally powerful branches: the Legislative and the Judicial, whose jobs are, respectively, to make the laws and to judge the laws. Our forefathers intended for each branch to provide checks on the others, which is critical for the balance of power within the government.

Now, all three branches are peppered heavily with Republicans. In the true sense of Lincoln’s Republican Party, this would not be a problem. But this is no longer the Republican party. A perfect example is how the Republican members of Congress, the party that enthusiastically voted for military aid and support to Ukraine, have changed their tune almost unanimously now in support of Trump's clash with Ukraine president VolodymyrZelensky on the 28th of February.

However, it is the job of all members of Congress, regardless of which party, to speak up when legal or moral rules are violated.

Our country is a tangible collection of many ideas and ideologies, yet all are subject to its laws, and all citizens within the realm possess guaranteed rights. Even those who argue we need a thorough cleansing of the federal bureaucracy are not advocates of “throwing the baby out with the bathwater.” Sure, we have very real problems: unchecked immigration, out-of-control national debt, etc. We do, of course, need to solve these problems.

However, the answers cannot be found in alienating half of our country’s citizens and many allies worldwide. President Trump’s meeting with President Zelensky at the White House was a national embarrassment, playing out on an international stage.

How can any of us remain nonplussed when viewing the chaos of the last several weeks? Or have Donald Trump’s litany of executive orders been so stunning that we are stunned and senseless?

Apparently so. Although some are rising in protest, and some judges and districts are bringing lawsuits, most Americans are acting as if all they need to do is change the channel on their smart TV, and this all-too-real reality show will go away.

But many don’t want to change the channel and believe our 47th President exhibits the “strong leadership” our nation needs. Of course, we do want strong leadership, but it must be tempered with respect and compassion, remembering that as president, our leader speaks for all his constituents, and he is the voice the world hears.

Our 26th President, Teddy Roosevelt, said it plainly, “Speak softly and carry a big stick, and you will go far.” Roosevelt’s approach emphasized the importance of maintaining a strong military as a deterrent while prioritizing diplomacy. One example of many was Roosevelt sending a fleet of U.S. Navy ships on a world tour to demonstrate American naval power, a peaceful yet powerful display of strength, aligning with his philosophy of speaking softly while carrying a big stick.

Perhaps many Americans who don’t support Trump's actions remain silent because they believe that, ultimately, the pendulum will swing, as it has in the past, and that we’ll restore sense and balance. But might it not be too late for us and the world if we do not take action now?

Presently, there are 96 legal challenges to the various Executive orders issued by the Trump Administration. Following the rule of law is one way to act with legal challenges and is likely to overturn many of Trump's executive orders. But there is more you can do. Protests against the DOGE cuts are happening across the country at an ever-increasing rate. A “50501 Movement’ standing for “50 states, 50 protests, one day” has emerged in which dozens of demonstrations across the U.S. were recently held.

The overriding message is “No Kings,” where protesters are criticizing some of President Donald Trump’s actions as illegal and beyond the scope of his presidential powers. Additionally, more and more protestors are taking aim at billionaire Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency-led efforts to cut spending and fire employees across the federal government without due process.

Donald Trump was re-elected as President of the United States to serve, not to reign, and he should return to these core principles.

Amy Lockard is an Iowa resident who regularly contributes to regional newspapers and periodicals. She is working on the second of a four-book fictional series based on Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice."

Read More

Just the Facts: Impact of the Big Beautiful Bill on Health Care

U.S. President Donald Trump takes the stage during a reception for Republican members of the House of Representatives in the East Room of the White House on July 22, 2025 in Washington, DC. Trump thanked GOP lawmakers for passing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Getty Images, Chip Somodevilla

Just the Facts: Impact of the Big Beautiful Bill on Health Care

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, we remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.

What are the new Medicaid work requirements, and are they more lenient or more restrictive than what previously existed?

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Constitution
Imagining constitutions
Douglas Sacha/Getty Images

A Bold Civic Renaissance for America’s 250th

Every September 17, Americans mark Constitution Day—the anniversary of the signing of our nation’s foundational charter in 1787. The day is often commemorated with classroom lessons and speaking events, but it is more than a ceremonial anniversary. It is an invitation to ask: What does it mean to live under a constitution that was designed as a charge for each generation to study, debate, and uphold its principles? This year, as we look toward the semiquincentennial of our nation in 2026, the question feels especially urgent.

The decade between 1776 and 1787 was defined by a period of bold and intentional nation and national identity building. In that time, the United States declared independence, crafted its first national government, won a war to make their independence a reality, threw out the first government when it failed, and forged a new federal government to lead the nation. We stand at a similar inflection point. The coming decade, from the nation’s semiquincentennial in 2026 to the Constitution’s in 2037, offers a parallel opportunity to reimagine and reinvigorate our American civic culture. Amid the challenges we face today, there’s an opportunity to study, reflect, and prepare to write the next chapters in our American story—it is as much about the past 250 years, as it is about the next 250 years. It will require the same kind of audacious commitment to building for the future that was present at the nation’s outset.

Keep ReadingShow less
Texas redistricting maps

Two bills have been introduced to Congress that aim to ban mid-decade redistricting on the federal level and contain provisions making an exception for mid-decade redistricting.

Tamir Kalifa/Getty Images

Congress Bill Spotlight: Anti-Rigging Act, Banning Mid-Decade Redistricting As Texas and California Are Attempting

Trump claims Republicans are “entitled” to five more Texas House seats.

Context: in the news

In August, the Republican-controlled Texas state legislature approved a rare “mid-decade” redistricting for U.S. House seats, with President Donald Trump’s encouragement.

Keep ReadingShow less
Independent Madness- or How the Cheshire Cat Can Slay the Gerrymander

The Cheshire Cat (John Tenniel) Devouring the Gerrymander (Elkanah Tisdale )

Independent Madness- or How the Cheshire Cat Can Slay the Gerrymander

America has a long, if erratic, history of expanding its democratic franchise. Over the last two centuries, “representation” grew to embrace former slaves, women, and eighteen-year-olds, while barriers to voting like literacy tests and outright intimidation declined. Except, that is, for one key group, Independents and Third-party voters- half the electorate- who still struggle to gain ballot access and exercise their authentic democratic voice.

Let’s be realistic: most third parties aren't deluding themselves about winning a single-member election, even if they had equal ballot access. “Independents” – that sprawling, 40-percent-strong coalition of diverse policy positions, people, and gripes – are too diffuse to coalesce around a single candidate. So gerrymanderers assume they will reluctantly vote for one of the two main parties. Relegating Independents to mere footnotes in the general election outcome, since they’re also systematically shut out of party primaries, where 9 out of 10 elections are determined.

Keep ReadingShow less