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

An Iranian flag and the message "No King" graffitied on the ruins of the data center building of Sharif University of Technology after a U.S.-Israeli missile strike on April 7, 2026 in Tehran, Iran.

How has the meaning of military victory changed? Explore Iran, deterrence, nuclear weapons, and why modern wars are fought with limited objectives.

Kaveh Kazemi/Getty Images

The Last War We Understood

Every modern conflict seems to produce the same debate.

Supporters argue that military action achieved its objectives. Critics ask why the enemy still exists. Iran is only the latest example.

Keep ReadingShow less
United States Capitol building and blurred American flag against blue sky

America’s aging Congress has no maximum age limit. Could a constitutional amendment create age limits for lawmakers and better represent younger voters?

TGI /Tetra Images

Congress Has an Age Floor and No Ceiling. That's Backwards for Gen Z.

Senator Dianne Feinstein's visible decline in her final years in office. Senator Lindsey Graham's sudden death. Senator Mitch McConnell's own recent hospitalization, and his halting explanation of it afterward. Three senators, three separate incidents, no obvious connection between them, except that the saga of these three senators is really one story about the problem of not knowing when to step down. That framing asks the right question of individual leaders. But it assumes the problem is a matter of personal judgment, each senator, in his or her own time, finding the wisdom to recognize the moment has passed. I think that gets the American version of this problem backwards. Congress's age problem is not a string of individual judgment calls. It is a structural feature of the Constitution itself, and it is quietly reshaping who gets represented in American government.

The Constitution sets a floor for federal office and no ceiling. A representative must be at least twenty-five. A senator must be at least thirty. A president must be at least thirty-five. Nothing in the document says how old is too old. Combine that asymmetry with the enormous advantages of incumbency, better name recognition, fundraising networks, committee seniority, and the result is predictable: a Congress that can start young but can never age out. It can only age up. The 119th Congress is now the third oldest in American history, with an average member age of nearly fifty-nine and a Senate averaging in the mid-sixties. This is not a temporary blip. It is the natural output of a system with a gate on one end and no gate on the other.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Enduring Illusion of Article the first
a large white building with a flag on top of it

The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

This is the third and final installment of our series on “Article the first.” Previous parts examined the history of the single inverted word that turned an intended floor into a ceiling and its impact on the amendment’s failed ratification. This concluding part outlines the path forward for enlarging the House today.

Part 3 — The Path Forward

Keep ReadingShow less
The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

Painting from 1856 by Junius Brutus Stearns of George Washington at the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

This is the second of a three-part series on the First Amendment proposed by Congress in 1789—often called “Article the first”—which was never ratified. Part 1 explained how a single inverted word in the text created a mathematical absurdity that has been misread for 237 years. This second part explores the untold history of how that defect affected the original ratification process in state legislatures.

Part 2 — The Untold History

Keep ReadingShow less