Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Anxiety, Fear, and Betrayal: The Emotional Impact of Trump’s 100-Day Blitz

Opinion

Anxiety, Fear, and Betrayal: The Emotional Impact of Trump’s 100-Day Blitz

U.S. President Donald Trump talks to reporters on April 23, 2025, in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Few can deny that whether you love or hate President Donald Trump, the first 100 days of his second term have been marked by bold and controversial actions that will shape American life for years, if not decades, to come. His administration has unleashed a torrent of dramatic moves: a record blitz of executive orders reshaping immigration, trade, and environmental policy; the escalation of trade wars, especially with China, that have rattled global markets; an aggressive effort to slash the size of federal agencies; and policy shifts in international relations, including a realignment on Russia and Ukraine. The stock market’s volatility reflects just how deeply these decisions are impacting the economic climate.

Yet, while the policy fireworks dominate headlines, a less visible but equally profound story is unfolding: the emotional toll Trump's presidency is having on millions of Americans.


For many, particularly those directly affected by the sweeping changes, there is a constant, gnawing sense of fear and uncertainty. Immigrants facing mass deportations, citizens facing the suspension of due process, members of the LGBTQ+ community being threatened with losing hard-fought rights, diversity programs dismantled, and hundreds of thousands of federal workers grappling with layoffs or the threat of them—all are navigating a landscape of heightened anxiety about their futures. The emotional distress among these groups is real, and it is growing.

But the ripple effects of emotional strain stretch far beyond traditionally marginalized communities.

Farmers —often seen as part of Trump's base—are among those now bearing heavy emotional burdens. The administration’s tariff battles have created market instability, slashed export opportunities, and driven up the cost of supplies. Farmers, many of whom operate on tight margins and seasonal incomes, are facing growing anxiety over the viability of their livelihoods. The unpredictable nature of Trump’s trade policies has left many feeling trapped between loyalty and economic survival, fueling frustration and fear in America’s agricultural heartland.

Veterans, too, are grappling with a deep sense of betrayal. Under the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) initiative, sweeping layoffs gutted the Department of Veterans Affairs, eliminating over 80,000 job s. These cuts have strained the system's ability to provide healthcare, mental health services, and employment for former service members. Veterans who once found purpose in helping their peers are now left jobless, while others are losing critical healthcare resources. This erosion of support has triggered new waves of anxiety, anger, and despai r among those who served.

The emotional landscape is also shifting dramatically for parents of children with disabilities. Cuts to Medicaid and other healthcare supports are threatening not just their children’s well-being but their families’ financial stability. As one parent told NBC Washington, "Without Medicaid, I don't know how we would survive." The sense of helplessness and fear that these families are experiencing is profound and growing.

And the list goes on. Women, worried about rollbacks to reproductive rights and workplace protections, report rising levels of fear and activism fatigue. University administrators must navigate an increasingly volatile environment for free speech, affirmative action, and campus safety. Nonprofit leaders, particularly those working on civil rights, environmental justice, and public health, are stretched thin trying to defend decades of hard-won progress against sweeping federal retrenchments.

Meanwhile, Trump’s confrontational leadership style is adding another layer of stress nationwide. Studies cited in Psychology Today in 2020 pointed to a clear trend: the president’s combative, polarizing, and often personal rhetoric heightens emotional distress across the political spectrum. Americans are again reporting increased levels of anxiety, anger, and political exhaustion. Many feel marginalized or unheard in a political climate defined by conflict rather than dialogue. Those on the right have had their fears fueled; those on the left have been cast as targets. The rising emotional distress only deepens Trump’s populist appeal, amplified through escalating “us vs. them” rhetoric and violent vocabulary.

In just 100 days, Trump’s presidency has left a visible mark on government institutions and global markets. But perhaps even more significantly, it has deepened the emotional divide within America, fraying the mental and emotional resilience of millions of its citizens.

If the next 1,360 days of his presidency continue at this pace, the damage to the American psyche may rival the political changes taking place on paper. Healing will not come easily.

David Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

Kristina Becvar is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and executive director of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.


Read More

The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

jimfeng/Getty Images

Pennsylvania’s Bipartisan Exchange Is Rebuilding Trust in Governance

The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics has nearly 40 years of experience working with legislators from different political parties, and it is building on this history by drawing on lessons from the successful American Congressional Exchange model, begun in 2018 at the Bipartisan Policy Center, and from state exchanges now underway in Minnesota and Michigan. The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics, in collaboration with the Bridge Alliance, has launched the Pennsylvania Legislative Exchange.

This state-based, systematic approach is designed to foster better relationships and build trust across the political aisle with the following guiding principles:

Keep ReadingShow less
An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
Five men sitting on one side of a table, as a panel at an event.

Harvard's Guy-Uriel Charles (left) listens to David Walker, Chair of the Federal Fiscal Sustainability Foundation. Fellow panelists (L-R) are Michael Farris, Convention of States Project; Samuel Fieldman, Wolf Pack; and Jim Rubens, FFSA and American Promise.

Photo by Martha Stewart

Congressional Inaction Raises Constitutional Change Alternative

Voting is the anchor of democracy, as we are reminded every two years. But this anchor rests on unstable ground today, signaling that our political roots need examining too.

In the United States, the Constitution itself becomes the focus when serious problems prompt such foundational civic dives. Our current challenges may not be as severe as the Civil War or the excesses of the Gilded Age, which produced waves of amendments, but today’s erosion of our system of checks and balances requires us to revisit our constitutional underpinnings.

Keep ReadingShow less
​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