Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Is Donald Trump Right?

Opinion

Is Donald Trump Right?

U.S. President Donald Trump pumps his fist outside the White House on September 29, 2025, in Washington, D.C.

(Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Now, hold on—hear me out.

Is Donald Trump right? I'm serious because the answer hinges on a deeper question: Should the presidency serve as a force for disruption or a safeguard of preservation?


For millions of Americans, President Trump’s second term isn’t a threat to democracy—it’s the fulfillment of a promise they believe was long overdue.

To be clear. I do not support Donald Trump. You only need to read my last couple of columns to reach that conclusion:

Is Pritzker Right? Is It Time To Invoke the 25th Amendment Against Trump?
Pope Leo XIV’s Rebuke of U.S. Immigration Policy Is a Wake-Up Call
Trump’s Deepfake Isn’t Just Offensive—It’s a Racist Distraction from Real Governance

I’ve never voted for Trump. I’ve been consistently critical of his leadership—particularly his scapegoating of vulnerable communities like immigrants (I am the son of Peruvian immigrants), and his attacks on the fourth estate, which undermine the role of journalism in a functioning democracy. I have served twice as president of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists (NAHJ), an organization championing the constitutional protections of a free press.

My work has long centered on the pursuit of truth, producing stories that are fair, and accurate, and I remain committed to those values.

Still, understanding the appeal of Trump, especially his second term, is essential—not to endorse it, but to engage it. Journalism demands that we interrogate power, not just oppose it. And civic dialogue requires that we listen, even when we disagree.

So, I ask you again. Is Donald Trump right? 77,302,580 (49.8% of the popular vote in the 2024 presidential election) believe he is.

One of Trump’s most defining—and divisive—stances has been his hardline approach to immigration. In his second term, he has doubled down on his efforts. “We will carry out the largest domestic deportation operation in American history,” he declared at a 2024 campaign rally in Phoenix. His administration has expanded detention centers, accelerated removals, and proposed legislation to end birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants.

I've argued immigration enforcement is not just a matter of policy—it’s a billion-dollar business. And behind the Trump Administration's rhetoric of “law and order” lies a disturbing truth: deportation-industrial complexes are not only profiting from human suffering, they’re bankrolling political campaigns that promise more of it.

Supporters argue this is not cruelty—it’s clarity. His framing of immigration as a national security issue has resonated with voters concerned about crime, labor competition, and cultural cohesion.

In response to rising crime and civil unrest in major cities, Trump has authorized the deployment of National Guard units to Chicago, Portland, Memphis, and other cities. Trump announced via social media that he had ordered the Department of Defense to deploy “all necessary Troops to protect war-ravaged Portland.” He justified the move as essential to safeguarding U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities, which he claimed were “under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists.”

I’m originally from the Northeast—born and raised in Paterson, New Jersey, with years spent working in New York City—but for the past five years, my family and I have called Chicago’s West Side home.

Yes, this city has long struggled with gun violence, and yes, our local leaders must be held accountable. But deploying the National Guard isn’t a solution—it’s political theater masquerading as public safety. It risks escalating tensions rather than easing them. Real change requires investment, not intimidation.

Still, Trump’s supporters see it as a necessary intervention.

For Trump, the National Guard is not just a tool of enforcement—it’s a symbol of federal resolve. His administration has framed the deployments as part of a broader initiative aimed at curbing violent crime and restoring public confidence in law enforcement.

A flurry of executive orders has marked Trump’s second term. These directives have touched everything from energy policy to education, tariffs to federal hiring practices.

Among the most controversial measures, the Trump Administration has made its priorities clear: ramp up domestic production of natural gas, oil, and coal, while rolling back federal initiatives aimed at advancing renewable energy and combating climate change. And a sweeping order requiring all federal agencies to review and eliminate “woke” training programs.

As a diversity, equity, and inclusion trainer and practitioner, I firmly believe this isn’t a time to cower to political pressure and retreat from programs necessary to ensure that institutions meet the needs of increasingly diverse populations. This is the time to advance on DEI initiatives.

Trump’s supporters praise his governance as bold and decisive—an antidote, they argue, to bureaucratic gridlock.

Immigration, the National Guard, executive orders —the list goes on and on.

In a political landscape defined by polarization, Donald Trump’s second term has reignited fierce debate over executive power, national identity, and global leadership. Critics warn of constitutional overreach and rhetorical recklessness. Yet for many supporters, Trump’s unapologetic style and sweeping actions represent a long-overdue correction to what they see as decades of political stagnation and global appeasement.

The question remains: Is Donald Trump right?

I want to hear from you.

Send your response—no more than 300 words—to newsroom@fulcrum.us. Please include your full name (or just first name if that makes you feel more comfortable) and the state you live in. The Fulcrum will select a range of submissions to share with readers as part of our ongoing civic dialogue.

We offer this platform for discussion and debate. Be thought-provoking, yes—but also thoughtful.

I look forward to reading your reflections.

- Hugo Balta, Executive Editor, Fulcrum, and Publisher of the Latino News Network.


Read More

Silence, Signals, and the Unfinished Story of the Abandoned Disability Rule

Waiting for the Door to Open: Advocates and older workers are left in limbo as the administration’s decision to abandon a harsh disability rule exists only in private assurances, not public record.

AI-created animation

Silence, Signals, and the Unfinished Story of the Abandoned Disability Rule

We reported in the Fulcrum on November 30th that in early November, disability advocates walked out of the West Wing, believing they had secured a rare reversal from the Trump administration of an order that stripped disability benefits from more than 800,000 older manual laborers.

The public record has remained conspicuously quiet on the matter. No press release, no Federal Register notice, no formal statement from the White House or the Social Security Administration has confirmed what senior officials told Jason Turkish and his colleagues behind closed doors in November: that the administration would not move forward with a regulation that could have stripped disability benefits from more than 800,000 older manual laborers. According to a memo shared by an agency official and verified by multiple sources with knowledge of the discussions, an internal meeting in early November involved key SSA decision-makers outlining the administration's intent to halt the proposal. This memo, though not publicly released, is said to detail the political and social ramifications of proceeding with the regulation, highlighting its unpopularity among constituents who would be affected by the changes.

Keep ReadingShow less
How Trump turned a January 6 death into the politics of ‘protecting women’

A memorial for Ashli Babbitt sits near the US Capitol during a Day of Remembrance and Action on the one year anniversary of the January 6, 2021 insurrection.

(John Lamparski/NurPhoto/AP)

How Trump turned a January 6 death into the politics of ‘protecting women’

In the wake of the insurrection at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, President Donald Trump quickly took up the cause of a 35-year-old veteran named Ashli Babbitt.

“Who killed Ashli Babbitt?” he asked in a one-sentence statement on July 1, 2021.

Keep ReadingShow less
Gerrymandering Test the Boundaries of Fair Representation in 2026

Supreme Court, Allen v. Milligan Illegal Congressional Voting Map

Gerrymandering Test the Boundaries of Fair Representation in 2026

A wave of redistricting battles in early 2026 is reshaping the political map ahead of the midterm elections and intensifying long‑running fights over gerrymandering and democratic representation.

In California, a three‑judge federal panel on January 15 upheld the state’s new congressional districts created under Proposition 50, ruling 2–1 that the map—expected to strengthen Democratic advantages in several competitive seats—could be used in the 2026 elections. The following day, a separate federal court dismissed a Republican lawsuit arguing that the maps were unconstitutional, clearing the way for the state’s redistricting overhaul to stand. In Virginia, Democratic lawmakers have advanced a constitutional amendment that would allow mid‑decade redistricting, a move they describe as a response to aggressive Republican map‑drawing in other states; some legislators have openly discussed the possibility of a congressional map that could yield 10 Democratic‑leaning seats out of 11. In Missouri, the secretary of state has acknowledged in court that ballot language for a referendum on the state’s congressional map could mislead voters, a key development in ongoing litigation over the fairness of the state’s redistricting process. And in Utah, a state judge has ordered a new congressional map that includes one Democratic‑leaning district after years of litigation over the legislature’s earlier plan, prompting strong objections from Republican lawmakers who argue the court exceeded its authority.

Keep ReadingShow less
New Year’s Resolutions for Congress – and the Country

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) (L) and Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX) lead a group of fellow Republicans through Statuary Hall on the way to a news conference on the 28th day of the federal government shutdown at the U.S. Capitol on October 28, 2025 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Chip Somodevilla

New Year’s Resolutions for Congress – and the Country

Every January 1st, many Americans face their failings and resolve to do better by making New Year’s Resolutions. Wouldn’t it be delightful if Congress would do the same? According to Gallup, half of all Americans currently have very little confidence in Congress. And while confidence in our government institutions is shrinking across the board, Congress is near rock bottom. With that in mind, here is a list of resolutions Congress could make and keep, which would help to rebuild public trust in Congress and our government institutions. Let’s start with:

1 – Working for the American people. We elect our senators and representatives to work on our behalf – not on their behalf or on behalf of the wealthiest donors, but on our behalf. There are many issues on which a large majority of Americans agree but Congress can’t. Congress should resolve to address those issues.

Keep ReadingShow less