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

The dome of the United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., stands tall against a blue sky with the American flag waving proudly

Congress faces growing pressure to pass redistricting reform as lawmakers debate banning gerrymandering, independent commissions, and mid-decade map changes amid renewed national controversy over fair elections.

Getty Images, aire images

Congress's Missed Opportunities on Redistricting Reform

On April 29, Issue One posted an image on Facebook and Instagram: CONGRESS CAN FIX THIS WITH THREE SIMPLE STEPS:

  1. Establish Clear National Criteria for Fair Maps
  2. Require Independent Redistricting Commissions in Every State
  3. Ban Mid-Decade Redistricting.

Issue One added below: “… but it needs 60 Senate votes to do it.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War
Toy soldiers in a battle formation
Photo by Saifee Art on Unsplash

The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War

In the Rumble in the Jungle, George Foreman came in expecting to end the fight early.

At first, it looked that way. He was stronger, faster, and landing clean punches. I watched the 1974 championship on simulcast fifty-two years ago and remember how dominant he was in the opening rounds.

Keep ReadingShow less
Calling Wealthy Benefactors!
A rusty house figure stands over a city.
Photo by Katja Ano on Unsplash

Calling Wealthy Benefactors!

My housing has been conditional on circumstances beyond my control, and the time is up; the owner is selling.

Securing affordable housing is a stressor for much of the working class. According to recent data, nearly 50% of renters are cost-burdened, meaning they spend over 30% of their take-home income on housing costs. Rental prices in California are especially high, 35% higher than the national average. Renting is routinely insecure. The lords of land need to renovate, their kids need to move in. They need to sell.

Keep ReadingShow less