Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

Congress approval is at a record-low 10%. Moderation and consensus-building, not partisan theatrics, are how Washington gets problems solved.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

Reclaiming the Politics of the Possible

Washington is stuck in a cycle of performative conflict. The incentives seem to reward outrage, not outcomes that last; purity tests, not problem‑solving. So it’s no surprise that after three shutdowns in less than a year, public approval of Congress collapsed to just 10 percent this spring. (Gallup, April 2026.) But the country we live in — where many middle-income families report persistent financial strain and businesses are navigating unprecedented technological upheaval — cannot be governed by theatrics. Breaking this cycle requires moderation, consensus‑building, and a cooperative approach to governance.

This is not a call for centrism as an ideology. Instead, this is a call for transformative leaders to embrace moderation as their governing strategy, recognizing that in a pluralistic country of nearly 350 million people durable solutions require broad and stable alliances. Ultimately, this is a call for the 240 million of us who are eligible to vote in November to elect consensus-builders instead of bomb-throwers, and healers instead of arsonists.

Keep ReadingShow less
California’s New Law Aims To Close a Housing Gap for Domestic Violence Survivors
Emily Scherer for The 19th; Getty Images

California’s New Law Aims To Close a Housing Gap for Domestic Violence Survivors

Domestic violence survivors often struggle to find housing, and California’s “Unseen and Unheard Housing Act” will help make more housing available to meet their specific needs.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the bill Sunday requiring cities and counties to factor in domestic violence survivors when planning for future housing.

Keep ReadingShow less
Classsroom
empty classroom with desks and chalkboard
Photo by Ivan Aleksic on Unsplash

Who Gets a Seat?: Florida’s New Bans on Undocumented Students in Public Higher Education

Each year, roughly 8,000 undocumented students graduate from Florida high schools. In 2026, Florida became the newest state to pass a regulation prohibiting this population from enrolling in state public colleges and selective universities. In June 2026, Florida State Board of Education passed Rule 6A-10.0240, which requires all 28 Florida College System institutions to certify admitted students as citizens of the United States or have lawful presence. In September 2026, a separate state board extended a similar ban to Florida’s most selective public universities.

Throughout the United States, there are three states that have historically upheld similar barring policies: Alabama and South Carolina ban undocumented students from all public colleges and universities, while Georgia bars them only from its most selective public universities. Florida’s restrictions are administrative rules and regulations, not state laws passed by the Legislature. Similar bills died in committee during Florida’s 2026 legislative session.

Keep ReadingShow less