If you aren't concerned, you aren't paying attention, or are complicit

Decency and Democracy - Opinion

Underlined text provide links to websites. To access a link, click on the text and open the link. You may be asked if you want to redirect to the website. Click yes.

Donald Trump’s lack of empathy and its effects

Empathy is defined by Oxford as “the ability to understand and share the feelings of another”. I am not a psychologist. It is clear, however, that Donald Trump exhibits traits and behavior indicative of someone who lacks empathy. On a human level, it is easy to feel sorry for him. He is a man who likely has never known true love. However, he is president of the United States, and his actions have significant negative impacts on individuals. I’ll start by examining his personality type.

Donald Trump’s Personality Type

A review of the literature indicates Donald Trump most likely fits the Myers-Briggs ESTP and Enneagram Type 8 personalities [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. ESTP people are known for bold and dynamic approaches, with a focus on action and results. Enneagram Type 8 personalities are referred to as “Challengers'' because they are not afraid to buck societal rules in pursuit of justice. They believe it is their job to combat oppression and stand up for those weaker than themselves. They are often impulsive and prefer to deal with issues head-on. ESTP people can make strong leaders. Examples include Theodore Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, and Alexander the Great. But Zwir and others (2020) estimate only 30 to 60 percent of a person’s personality is inherent (i.e genetic). In a 2008 study, Roberts and Mroczek determined that a person’s personality changes over time, particularly between the ages of 20 and 40. Thus, while Donald Trump’s fundamental personality type could result in him being an effective leader, events in his life have shaped how this basic personality is expressed.

Donald Trump’s Background

Donald Trump had a difficult childhood and has been labeled as a problem child by many writers. He was heavily influenced by his father, Fred Trump, and Roy Cohn. These men have rather tarnished reputations, both being aggressive, unethical businessmen [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. Trump was sent to military school at age 13, allegedly for being a “problem” child. Several classmates recall him being a bully, someone who wanted to dominate [1, 2, 3]. His relationship with his mother was strained and distant, at best [1, 2, 3]. Trump therefore never had close ties with people who could teach him empathy, instead being influenced by people who were just the opposite. He learned to be aggressive, to control and bully, and always to win.

The Result

You can literally find thousands of articles describing Donald Trump’s personality, few of which are flattering. You find terms like narcissistic, solipsist, sociopath, mentally ill, nihilistic, personality disorder, impulsive, chaotic, controlling, and so on. I won’t bother to provide references.

There is little doubt Donald Trump is a dominating personality. Thus, his appeal to so many people, who admire all his strengths, but are blind to his flaws. As John Meacham stated, it is the Age of Trump.

Of course, I am concerned by many of Trump’s actions, such as tariffs, cozying up to authoritarians, the incessant lying, and so on. But my biggest concern is his almost complete lack of empathy. And since he is perhaps the most powerful person in the world, this has tragic consequences for millions of people. Here are some examples.

· In the immediate aftermath of the 29th plane crash, Trump stated “The country is in mourning”, then launched into his typical self-aggrandization and blaming of others: “I put safety first … Obama, Biden and the Democrats put policy first.”, then continued this rant for several more sentences. This was before there was any information regarding the cause of the accident. Also, notice the statement about how the country is mourning – no individual feeling on his part.

· Winkler (2025) writes “One of the most glaring examples of the Trump administration’s lack of empathy was the implementation of the family separation policy at the U.S.-Mexico border. Thousands of children were forcibly taken from their parents and held in detention centers, often in deplorable conditions. While the policy was justified as a deterrent to illegal immigration, the human cost was staggering. Reports of traumatized children, some as young as infants, crying for their parents sparked global outrage.”.

· An article in Lancet (2025) studied the impacts of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) from 2001-2021 and the likely effect cutting the program will have. The study estimates that USAID programs have saved over 90 million lives over the past two decades. The researchers also estimate that if the current cuts continue through 2030, 14 million people who might have otherwise lived could die.

These are just three examples. There literally are hundreds of other examples. Critics of this article may counter with examples of Trump exhibiting empathy, such as when he talks about all the people dying in the Russia-Ukraine war, and how that has to stop. To understand these apparent instances of empathy requires understanding Trump. He must win; he must gain something from every transaction. He plays a zero-sum end game. There are several possible things Trump wants from a cease-fire, ranging from trade deals with Russia, deals with Ukraine, increased military contributions from other countries, decreased US spending, and political gain. Some of these are reasonable goals. However, in the case of the Russia-Ukraine war, he fails to understand that Russia attacked Ukraine without provocation. There is no empathy for the Ukrainian people.

Many of Donald Trump’s goals make sense. But his methods always focus on him getting a win, be it political or financial. The result is achieving these “wins” comes at a human cost. Perhaps that doesn’t matter to a lot of people. It does to me.

Is the MAGA movement anti-American?

Before explaining the heading, two premises must be offered. First is that American means believing and supporting a Democratic system built on the foundation of three independent branches of government and the U.S. Constitution. Second, the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement is represented by Donald Trump and his cohorts. If you agree with these two premises, the MAGA movement is fundamentally an anti-American movement.

The first Trump presidency could be defined as supporting fairly extreme right wing policies, but it was not defined by attempts to usurp the existing American system. This Administration is different. It has demonstrated contempt and disregard for court rulings that do not support its positions, has attempted to sidestep the U.S. Constitution, threatened U.S. allies, threatened to prosecute and imprison people it perceives as enemies, threatened universities and law firms, and so on. We have lived through liberal and conservative presidencies. Though we disagreed with the actions of some of these, we never felt American Democracy was threatened.

This is different. Donald Trump and his cohorts have not laid out a clear vision for their America, but it is certainly not the U.S. vision laid out in our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. Perhaps they don’t have a clear agenda. Perhaps they are not exposing their true intention. But as the old saying goes, actions speak louder than words.

For more on this topic, we suggest reading these articles.

Contempt for court rulings

Threatened allies

Threatened perceived enemies

Threatened universities

Threatened law firms

Understanding the Federal Court System and its rulings

I’ll start by prefacing that I am not a lawyer. This article is an attempt to understand how the authors of the U.S. Constitution viewed the judicial branch and how that branch has functioned historically. In particular, this article addresses the question “Can Federal Courts, other than the Supreme Court, issue rulings that can be applied nationwide?”. For a primer on the structure of the Federal Court System, link here.

First, let’s review Article 3 of the Constitution.

· The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

· The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made …

· … the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

What does this mean? That is an important question. It seems clear the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter for rulings related to the Constitution, federal laws, and federal treaties. This includes overruling decisions of lower courts. Congress, of course, has the power to write new laws.

But do lower courts have the authority to make rulings that affect the entire nation? The short answer is yes, unless and until the Congress changes the existing federal court system.

The next important question is under what circumstances should a lower court ruling be applied nationwide. Nationwide injunctions were extremely rare prior to the George W. Bush Administration. But nationwide injunctions have risen dramatically over the past 25 years. Perhaps more alarmingly, more than 90 percent of the injunctions during the Biden and first Trump Administrations were by judges appointed by the opposing political party.

There are many possible reasons for this increase, but three seem to stand out. First is the ineffectiveness of Congress. As the nation has become more politically polarized, Congress followed suit. Consequently, Congress has essentially become paralyzed in its ability to pass laws and provide a check on Executive power. Second, as a result of Congressional paralysis, and perhaps reflecting the polarization of the voting public, presidents have increasingly relied on Executive Orders. This is dangerous if a president has limited regard for the U.S. Constitution. Third, the Federal Court System has become increasingly political.

So, back to the question: should District and Circuit federal courts have the ability to make nationwide injunctions? In cases where decisions may be unconstitutional or inconsistent with federal laws and treaties, the answer is yes. In many cases it may be difficult to determine if something is unconstitutional. But this Administration has clearly crossed that line. Examples include ignoring the rights of individuals granted by the 5th and 6th amendments, challenged Birthright Citizenship granted by the 14th amendment, claimed to be immune from state criminal processes, and illegally fired thousands of federal employees.

It is for the courts to decide if the Administration is correct in each of these cases, and for the Administration to abide by the court’s decision. It is their prerogative to appeal any decision made by a lower court. It is not their prerogative to ignore those decisions.

For more on this topic, see the following.

Should the U.S. Constitution be updated, amended, or eliminated?

This is a fair question. It should be debated. The process for amending the Constitution is laid out in Article V of the Constitution.

All presidential administrations have undertaken actions in which the constitutionality of the action has been challenged. It is then up to the Courts, under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, to determine if those actions were unconstitutional. The current Administration, however, has pushed back on judicial authority, going so far as to recommend impeachment of a judge who made a ruling against the Administration (NPR, March, 2025). Stephen Miller, Donald Trump’s policy advisor, recently stated "We are living under a judicial tyranny," (Axios, May, 2025). Are recent actions indicative of a need for Constitutional reform, or are they indicative of Executive overreach?

Do a web search on the topic of updating the Constitution and you could spend a week sifting through information, opinions, and so on. A 2022 survey conducted by the Edmon Low Library at Oklahoma State University asked the question “How would you change the Constitution?”. There were 289 responses. A little over 5 percent feel the Constitution is fine as it is. The majority of responses were vague, with replies such as “equal rights for all” or “no restrictions on guns”. Of the replies that seemed substantive, common themes included term limits, revising the Electoral College, and modifying voting requirements (e.g. minimum voting age).

Read articles by so-called “experts”, or read through on-line forums, and you often find a different theme. Aside from the pointless 27th amendment concerning Congressional pay raises, Congress has not proposed a successful amendment since 1971. In today’s political reality, with extreme tribalism, it is hard to imagine Congress successfully amending the Constitution. Congressional approval polls over the past two decades show approvals of 30 percent or less. However, as the saying goes, people love their Congressional representative, but not the U.S. Congress (Claremont McKenna, 2024; Pew Research Center, 2023).

So, I hypothesize that the question about changing the Constitution is pointless. It can’t be done under the current political circumstances. Which means Americans have to come to grips with their differences. Remember, Congress represents us.

In reviewing the responses to the Oklahoma State University survey, I was surprised at the number of people who appear to not understand the authorities given to Congress. A large number of responses focused on issues that would be addressed through rule-making, not Constitutional change. Yes, the language in the Constitution can be difficult to interpret, having been written by white men who rode horses 250 years ago. That’s what the Courts are for – to interpret the Constitution. But the Constitution gives states and the U.S. Congress significant authority to write laws. So yes, the language in the Constitution is vague and often requires interpretation, but maybe the problem is with the lawmakers. This, of course, means the problem is really with the people who elect those lawmakers.