Newsy's Vote Smarter 2020 series aims to answer your questions about the most unusual election in modern history. From early voting to counting ballots to staying safe at the polls, get all the information you need to successfully cast your ballot this year.
This video is being made available on The Fulcrum through our partnership with Newsy — "delivering news with the why."
President-elect Donald Trump speaks to the press following a meeting with Senate Republicans at the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington, DC on January 8, 2025.
Donald Trump’s second-term agenda outlines an ambitious plan to reshape major aspects of American society. While his vision energizes supporters, it has drawn criticism for potentially upsetting democratic norms and threatening effective governance. Even with a Republican trifecta, narrow Congressional margins and significant legal challenges could stall these efforts before the 2026 midterms.
A cornerstone of Trump’s agenda is the reintroduction of Schedule F, a proposal to strip senior civil servants of job protections, allowing their replacement with political appointees. Advocates see it as a way to dismantle bureaucratic resistance to presidential priorities, often dubbed the “deep state.” Critics, however, warn that it could erode the independence of the federal workforce, turning agencies into partisan tools. Legal challenges to Schedule F would likely arise soon after Trump takes office, with courts scrutinizing its compliance with federal employment laws. Additionally, concerns about executive branch politicization may complicate efforts to garner Congressional support.
Another key initiative targets Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs in universities and corporations. Trump’s allies propose tying federal funding to the elimination of such initiatives, arguing they impose ideological conformity and detract from merit-based practices. Opponents contend this would undo progress in addressing systemic inequities and promoting diversity. Legal battles under anti-discrimination laws and resistance from universities and civil rights organizations are likely, with public opinion on DEI issues being deeply divided.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Trump’s proposals for higher education extend beyond DEI. Plans to tax university endowments and revise accreditation standards aim to curb what supporters view as ideological bias at elite institutions like Harvard and Yale. While these measures resonate with his base, they risk alienating powerful stakeholders, including alumni, donors, and moderate policymakers. Legal challenges could emerge, particularly if the policies disproportionately target specific institutions. Congressional Republicans may also hesitate to back initiatives perceived as overreaching.
Trump’s contentious relationship with mainstream media raises concerns about potential threats to press freedom. His proposals to regulate media organizations or enable lawsuits over perceived bias could conflict with First Amendment protections. Advocacy groups and legal experts would likely challenge such moves in court, while public backlash could erode broader support. Though criticism of the media galvanizes Trump’s base, polling consistently shows strong public support for an independent press as a cornerstone of democracy.
Immigration enforcement is still one of the most divisive elements of Trump’s agenda. Proposals to use the military to deport undocumented immigrants, particularly in sanctuary cities, could clash with constitutional limits on the military’s domestic role. The Posse Comitatus Act restricts the use of federal troops for domestic law enforcement, making legal challenges inevitable. Resistance from state and local governments would further complicate implementation. Public opinion on immigration is still polarized, making this issue a likely flashpoint for political conflict.
Trump’s narrow Congressional majority poses more hurdles for his ambitious reforms. Many proposals require legislative approval, leaving little room for GOP defections. While budget reconciliation offers a mechanism for advancing fiscal measures, it cannot be used for broader regulatory or politically sensitive changes. Democrats, now relieved that prior efforts to end the Senate filibuster failed, will likely use it to block Trump’s agenda.
Institutional inertia and opposition from stakeholders add to the challenges. Federal agencies, corporations, and state governments may resist abrupt policy changes, while advocacy groups and public opinion exert more pressure. Controversial measures will almost certainly face prolonged legal battles, delaying or blocking their implementation. Even with Republican control of the presidency and Congress, Trump’s vision for transformative change faces a tough path forward.
While bold and polarizing, Trump’s agenda reflects his ideological priorities and commitment to reshaping American institutions. However, the narrow margins in Congress, expected legal challenges, and potential public backlash suggest that many initiatives may struggle to gain traction. As his administration begins navigating the complexities of governance, it will need to balance ambition with pragmatism. Whether these efforts succeed in delivering lasting change or become mired in political and legal battles stays uncertain.
Robert Cropf is a professor of political science at Saint Louis University.
People commemorate the victims of NYE terror attack on Bourbon Street, New Orleans, USA, January 6, 2025.
The end of 2024 and the beginning of 2025 have brought an onslaught of terror attacks and tumult. While the incidents that occurred over the last several months may not be connected, they do usher in a sense of chaos and fear.
As a country, to meet this moment of terror, we must all look both outwards and inwards.
All while balancing the public’s safety and protecting our beloved freedoms.
While not exhaustive, here are a few of the terror-inducing events that have occurred over the last several months:
On Dec. 4, 2024, Brian Thompson, the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, was shot and killed in Midtown Manhattan, New York City, in a “brazen, targeted attack” as he walked toward a hotel, New York police said. Luigi Mangione, the man accused of killing Thompson, was later charged with 11 counts, including murder in the second degree as a crime of terrorism.
Debrina Kawam of Toms River, N.J., was burned alive on Dec. 22, 2024, on a New York City subway. Kawam was asleep on a subway train that stopped at a station in Brooklyn’s Coney Island when her clothes were set ablaze. Sebastian Zapeta-Calil allegedly fanned the flames with a shirt, engulfing her in the blaze, before sitting on a platform bench and watching as she burned. Zapeta-Calil pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder and other charges.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
A total of 14 people were killed, and 35 people were injured after a man drove a truck into a crowd at Bourbon and Canal streets in New Orleans on New Year's Day in a terrorist attack, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI). The FBI confirmed the identity of the suspected driver of the truck as Shamsud-Din Jabbar of Texas. Jabbar was an Army Veteran who claimed to be a member of ISIS. He had an ISIS flag, an ice chest with pipe bombs, guns, and IEDs at the time of the attack. Jabbar was killed after being shot by the New Orleans Police Department.
The FBI shared that Jabbar said he joined ISIS before the summer and had originally planned to kill his family but felt that killing his family "would not focus on the war between the believers and disbelievers."
Also on New Year's Day, another Army veteran fatally shot himself in a Tesla Cybertruck just before it blew up outside the Trump hotel in Las Vegas, Nevada. Matthew Livelsberger, a 37-year-old Green Beret from Colorado Springs, Colorado, left notes saying the New Year’s Day explosion “Was not a terrorist attack, it was a wakeup call. Americans only pay attention to spectacles and violence. What better way to get my point across than a stunt with fireworks and explosives.”
The FBI defines domestic terrorism as “Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.” International terrorism differs in that those violent acts or crimes “are committed by individuals and/or groups who are inspired by, or associated with, designated foreign terrorist organizations or nations (state-sponsored).”
The goal of a terrorist, foreign or domestic, is to instill fear into our communities. Anyone who lived through the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil on Sept. 11, 2001, knows this to be true.
Our society can deal with these intrusions on our safety and security and push back on our fears by looking outward to our leaders and elected officials and inward by strengthening our personal relationships and communities.
Citizens can hope that the elected officials who were recently elected, as well as the leaders of our institutions, will take our collective security seriously. We should also expect that those very leaders will share accurate information and not spew misinformation or share inaccurate reporting on the suspects or perpetrators of these crimes.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has a wealth of resources on its website to prevent targeted violence and terrorism, including a Prevention Resource Finder. These resources include community support, grant funding opportunities, information-sharing platforms, evidence-based research, bullying, depression, domestic violence, mental health support, gun safety best practices, and training opportunities for communities to reduce the risk of targeted violence, including hate-based targeted violence.
DHS suggests that preventing targeted violence and terrorism requires a community approach. Their list of community members includes educators, law enforcement, health care practitioners, behavioral and mental health professionals, faith-based organizations, and state, local, tribal, and territorial governments.
Omitted from DHS’ list is each of us as individuals, who are called to do our part. Just look at the words from our national anthem, “The Star-Spangled Banner,” which reminds us that we live in the land of the free and the home of the brave.
The FBI’s Counterterrorism Division recommends US citizens can:
It's important to stay aware of our surroundings without becoming overly anxious. Knowing potential safety concerns can empower us to respond appropriately if we notice something unusual. Being informed can help us feel more secure and prepared.
The fear of terrorism can be debilitating. While it is important to stay informed, limit media exposure, practice relaxation techniques, develop safety plans, seek support from loved ones, and reach out to professionals if anxiety becomes overwhelming.
Essentially, trying to maintain a sense of control by acknowledging fears while focusing on daily life and taking practical steps to mitigate risks are key practices in coping with the anxiety and fear of terrorism and violence.
Firefighters from the Los Angeles County Fire Department stand vigilant as they battle wildfires in Los Angeles while several blazes continue to tear through the region on January 10, 2025.
Since the fires ignited in and around Los Angeles, many residents have returned to their neighborhoods, which are still smoldering, despite the ongoing threat of new fires and the prevailing unrest in the nation's second-largest city. For some, this marked their first opportunity to witness the extent of the devastation as the region, home to 13 million people, faces the significant challenge of recovery and rebuilding.
Fire officials are concerned over strengthening winds this week as Investigators are exploring various potential ignition sources for the large fires that have resulted in at least 16 fatalities and the destruction of thousands of homes and businesses.
The Associated Press reports that in the hilly, upscale Pacific Palisades, home to Hollywood stars like Jamie Lee Curtis and Billy Crystal, who lost houses in the fire, officials have placed the origin of the wind-whipped blaze behind a home on Piedra Morada Drive, which sits above a densely wooded arroyo.
While lightning is the most common source of fires in the U.S., according to the National Fire Protection Association, investigators were able to rule that out quickly. There were no reports of lightning in the Palisades area or the terrain around the Eaton Fire, which started in east Los Angeles County and destroyed hundreds of homes.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Prominent conservatives, including President-elect Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk, have attributed the severe damage and loss of life from the multiple wildfires to the Los Angeles Fire Department's focus on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, as well as conservation efforts aimed at protecting the endangered delta smelt fish.
Trump has not expressed significant sympathy regarding the crisis; he has stated that he could manage the situation more effectively, blaming the state's Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom.
Newsom blasted Trump in an interview on NBC News’ “Meet the Press," saying, “Mis- and disinformation I don’t think advantages or aids any of us.” Regarding Trump's insults to him, Newsom said, “I’m very familiar with them. Every elected official that he disagrees with is very familiar with them.”
Newsom wrote a letter to Trump inviting him to come to his state and tour the destruction.
“The root cause is climate change,” said Julie May, senior scientist with Communities for a Better Environment, in an interview with The Sacramento Bee. May said climate change has contributed to periods of heavy rain — which causes plant life to grow — followed by extended periods of drought — which dries those plants out, turning them into perfect fire fuel, leading Southern California to its current tinderbox state.
Major weather monitoring agencies have confirmed that 2024 is the hottest year recorded in global history. Notably, four out of six agencies indicated that it marks the first full year in which Earth exceeded a warming threshold considered critical for mitigating the most severe effects of climate change.
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum, and the publisher of the Latino News Network. An award-winning news veteran, the only two-term president of the National Associaton of Hispanic Journalists was recently recognized by Northwestern University Medill School of Journalism.
Government Debt Ceiling - Capitol, Congress and Senate - Budget Package
On January 20, 2025, at the moment he takes the oath of office, President Trump will find himself between a rock and a hard place. The rock is the nature of his job, that he must carry out the laws of the land, including the spending of money on Congressionally approved programs. Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution establishes one of the President’s core responsibilities – “He shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”
The hard place is that on January 1, 2025, the 2023 suspension of the debt ceiling law expired. The ceiling is now 31.4 trillion dollars, while the debt is over 36 trillion. Trump 47 will be the first President to be constrained by the debt ceiling on day one. Starting January 1 and continuing from January 20, absent some action by Congress, every dollar spent will add a fraction of a dollar to the national debt, putting the President further and further out of compliance with the debt ceiling law.
Right now, there is a political opportunity, perhaps even an expectation, that now is our last, best opportunity to do something about government spending. The inherited debt ceiling creates an opportunity for Trump to fix the spending problem and bring America along with him in the effort.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Many argue that a president can simply invoke the 14th Amendment, though that constitutional provision states that “the validity of the national debt shall not be questioned.” In other words, as I have previously argued,absent a complete breakdown of society and the federal government, it is not constitutionally possible for the U.S. to default. Thus, no invocation is needed. However, the debt ceiling is a valid law that any president must carry out in his executive role, as are the appropriation bills approved by Congress.
And thus, Trump will inherit a dilemma and an opportunity. Assuming Congress does not take action before his inauguration, Trump will be forced to choose between conflicting laws.
What will President Trump do? We know he fancies himself a bold leader willing to exercise his power to the fullest. So let me suggest one possibility. A day or two after his inauguration, he should speak to the American people on this issue from the Oval Office. He should inform the American public that with or without a debt ceiling, our current debt trajectory is not sustainable and must be addressed (ideally, he should take responsibility for the excessive COVID deficit of 2020 – but that will never happen). In doing so, he should also assure us, and indeed the global community (around 30% of our debt is held by foreign governments and investors), that the U.S. will never default on its debt because it is Constitutionally impossible for us to do so – and that we will pay our bills, we will pay the interest on our debt, and our debt will be repaid or refinanced without fail. He should express the achievement of a balanced budget by the final year of his administration as a priority.
He should then announce that, over the coming days and weeks, he will impound (refuse to spend) vast amounts of spending already appropriated by Congress. Ideally, the impoundment should be large enough that for some time, revenues actually exceed spending – not just a balanced budget but a surplus day-to-day that moves towards compliance with the debt ceiling. That may be a bridge too far in the short term.
Impoundment has a long history, starting with Thomas Jefferson. However, President Nixon abused the process, and Congress enacted the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act in 1974. Though it was not a frequent campaign promise,Trump stated his intent to use impoundment once re-elected and claimed the 1974 restrictions were unconstitutional. You may also remember a specific impoundment implemented by Trump to withhold security aid to Ukraine in July 2019. He did so without a specific request to Congress and ultimately released the aid in September. This act was core to his first impeachment, not because it violated the 1974 law but because it was timed with his request of Ukrainian President Zelensky that he investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, then a strong contender to face Trump in the 2020 election, and his son Hunter Biden.
Current law requires the president to submit any impoundment proposal to Congress, and they must approve such a request before implementation. However, given the conflicting law circumstances, Trump should implement the impoundments immediately and ignore any rejection by Congress. He will be challenged, of course, and the issue will likely be fast-tracked to the Supreme Court, but it will still require months to settle the issue. Given the conflict between appropriation laws and the debt ceiling, any president would have the right and responsibility to pursue what he considers the best path until Congress (or the Supreme Court) fixes the conflict. [As a side note, I would expect SCOTUS to leave the impoundment restrictions in place, there being no specific provision for them in the Constitution. However, the debt ceiling may not pass muster. When Congress approves spending plans requiring debt, they essentially authorize the debt.]
In this scenario, Trump will need to prioritize spending (fundamental military and other national defense expenditures, Social Security payments, and Medicare payments should all be at the top). Meanwhile, specific and significant impoundments will need to be identified. This is a perfect role for his Department of Government Efficiency, in conjunction with cabinet department secretaries and their senior staff. It is beyond the scope of this essay to be specific in what can or should be impounded. The process of DOGE identifying them and the administration proposing them to Congress as permanent changes should be fascinating, illuminating, and educational.
In explaining his plans to the American people, he should acknowledge that this path will be disruptive. Many federal employees across all departments will be furloughed, and some will eventually be terminated. Programs that are important to some people will be suspended, some of them permanently. A dramatic decrease in federal spending will likely kick off a long-overdue recession. Many companies will be negatively affected directly and indirectly. The unemployment rate will increase. The stock market might not just drop but enter bear market status.
He should acknowledge to the American people that this will be painful and request their support and understanding in carrying out this important strategy in his effort to make America great again. If he went down this path, he would blame “the Swamp” and claim this was a necessary step in draining it.
What else will happen? The American people and their representatives will see the extent of government waste, fraud, and abuse. They will begin to understand the full scope of unnecessary federal spending. If there was a recession and a resulting bear market for stocks occurred, this could move more investors to the safety of Treasury debt, reducing interest rates and thus further reducing federal spending. If this happened, the inflation rate would likely come down dramatically. The Federal Reserve, seeing the reduction in inflation, will reduce its overnight interest rate to banks, incentivizing them to lend money to businesses large and small. The bond markets should be encouraged by the reduction in inflation and the potential movement to a balanced budget, and interest rates could come down accordingly. Lower interest rates will benefit everyone, including corporations, small businesses, and those seeking to buy a new home.
If mere movement towards a balanced budget is made, and President Trump's desired tax rate decreases are implemented, the markets will likely be enthused; the recession, though extremely painful, may be brief; economic activity could come roaring back; tax revenues might actually increase; domestic and foreign companies could see America as financially healthy for the long-term and thus the best place to build and grow their business; investment in new companies and technology could surge; manufacturing plants might be expanded and built with new high paying jobs being created; America could not just be great again but better than ever.
The next four years will be a roller coaster of ups and downs. Whatever approach we take, let’s hope we use this opportunity to dramatically change course, not just away from the rock and the hard place but onto a sustainable path. If Trump starts us on this road, it could be his greatest legacy.
David Butler is a husband, father, grandfather, business executive, entrepreneur, and political observer.
