FOR ONCE, I AGREE WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP 100%.
FOR ONCE, I AGREE WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP 100%.
Yesterday (10–23–2026), President Donald Trump posted something on Truth Social that I find myself agreeing with completely:
“A healthy person has a thousand dreams. A sick person has only one (to get better)!”
And for perhaps the first time, I can honestly say I agree with our 47th president 100%.
But when I read those words, I wasn’t thinking about the health of one individual. I was thinking about the health of our nation.
Think about everything America has experienced over the past two years:
We have watched political polarization tear apart families, destroy lifelong friendships, divide communities, and turn ordinary disagreements into questions of personal character and loyalty. Thanksgiving dinners have become political minefields, neighbors increasingly judge one another by campaign signs, and social media has become a battleground where insults replace meaningful discussions. We have reached a point where supporting a particular political candidate can somehow outweigh decades of demonstrated kindness, honesty, compassion, and integrity. Instead of discussing policies and their consequences, too many Americans have been conditioned to view those who disagree with them as enemies. A healthy democracy requires disagreement, but it cannot thrive when political allegiance becomes more important than our shared humanity.
We have experienced the continuing financial pressure of rising prices for groceries, housing, gasoline, healthcare, insurance, utilities, and virtually every necessity of everyday life. Families who once lived comfortably now struggle to balance their budgets, retirees on fixed incomes watch their purchasing power diminish, and younger Americans increasingly question whether homeownership and financial independence will ever be within reach. Consumer prices rose another 3.7% over the year ending September 2026, while gasoline prices increased more than 34% during that period. Politicians may celebrate economic statistics, but those numbers mean little to a parent deciding which groceries to leave on the shelf or a senior choosing between medication and other essential expenses. The American dream should not require working harder every year simply to afford the same standard of living we enjoyed the year before.
We have watched an aggressive and frequently changing tariff policy create uncertainty for American businesses, manufacturers, farmers, retailers, and consumers. Tariffs imposed on imports from countries including China, Canada, Mexico, and our European trading partners have disrupted established business relationships and increased costs throughout supply chains. Despite political claims that foreign countries pay these tariffs, American importers generally pay them directly, with some of those expenses ultimately passed along to American consumers. Small businesses must decide whether to raise prices, reduce profits, delay expansion, or absorb additional expenses, while manufacturers face uncertainty about the future cost of imported materials and components. Tariffs may have legitimate strategic purposes, but their economic consequences deserve honest examination. American economic policy should be judged by measurable results, not political slogans or the appearance of toughness.
We have seen signs of weakening employment growth and increasing uncertainty for American workers at a time when economic stability should be a national priority. The September 2026 employment report showed the economy adding only 29,000 jobs, with unemployment at 4.2%, raising concerns about the pace of hiring and the availability of new opportunities. Businesses facing uncertain trade policies, borrowing costs, and consumer demand may delay hiring or expansion, while workers become reluctant to change careers, purchase homes, or make other major financial commitments. Behind every employment statistic is a person trying to support a family, pay a mortgage, build retirement savings, or simply maintain financial independence. A strong economy should be measured not only by corporate profits and stock market performance, but by the availability of stable employment, reasonable wages, and genuine opportunities for ordinary Americans.
We have witnessed substantial reductions in the federal workforce, including approximately 264,000 fewer federal employees as of August 2026 compared with January 2025, accompanied by restructuring, hiring restrictions, early retirements, and departures from agencies responsible for essential public services. These reductions have raised concerns about staffing, institutional experience, and the government’s ability to carry out responsibilities involving veterans’ benefits, Social Security, aviation safety, public health, scientific research, disaster response, and national security. I support eliminating waste, improving efficiency, and holding government employees accountable, but reducing the number of employees does not automatically mean government is functioning more effectively. When experienced personnel leave, their expertise and institutional knowledge may be difficult or expensive to replace. The measure of government efficiency should be how effectively it serves the American people, not simply how many positions have been eliminated.
We have watched Congress and the administration enact substantial changes to Medicaid that the Congressional Budget Office projects will reduce federal spending by approximately $1.2 trillion over ten years and leave approximately 7.5 million additional Americans without health insurance by 2034. These changes include new work requirements, enrollment restrictions, and financing provisions that could place greater financial pressure on hospitals and healthcare providers, particularly in rural and economically disadvantaged communities. While supporters argue that the changes encourage employment, reduce unnecessary spending, and strengthen eligibility enforcement, critics warn that eligible individuals may lose coverage because of administrative obstacles or reduced access to care. These are projected consequences, not losses that have all occurred already, but they deserve serious attention. We should be capable of promoting personal responsibility and controlling healthcare spending without losing sight of the human consequences for families, children, older Americans, and people struggling with illness.
We have seen major changes to federal food assistance programs, including legislation projected to reduce Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program spending by approximately $211 billion over ten years through expanded work requirements, eligibility changes, and increased financial responsibilities for states. These changes could affect working families with limited incomes, older adults, unemployed individuals, and households already struggling with the cost of groceries. I believe government assistance programs should encourage independence, prevent fraud, and ensure that taxpayer money is spent responsibly, but there is a fundamental difference between eliminating abuse and creating obstacles that prevent genuinely needy Americans from obtaining food. For families living paycheck to paycheck, even a relatively modest reduction in assistance can mean difficult decisions about what goes on the dinner table. A compassionate and responsible society should be able to demand accountability without abandoning people who genuinely need assistance.
We have watched a dramatic expansion of immigration enforcement, detention, and deportation operations, accompanied by serious legal disputes concerning due process, the treatment of detainees, family separation, and the limits of executive authority. The administration has pursued accelerated removal procedures and broader enforcement powers, while federal courts have examined whether some actions comply with constitutional and statutory protections. I firmly believe the United States has the right and responsibility to secure its borders, enforce immigration laws, and remove individuals who are lawfully subject to deportation, particularly those who pose genuine threats to public safety. But securing our borders does not require abandoning due process, treating every undocumented immigrant as a violent criminal, or ignoring the human consequences for families and communities. The strength of our legal system should be demonstrated by our willingness to follow the law even when doing so is inconvenient, controversial, or politically unpopular.
We have witnessed repeated confrontations between the executive branch and the federal judiciary over immigration enforcement, government spending, agency restructuring, and the constitutional limits of presidential power. Federal judges have been called upon to determine whether executive actions exceed statutory authority or violate constitutional protections, while the administration has challenged unfavorable rulings through appeals and other legal proceedings. These disputes are an important part of our constitutional system, but they also demonstrate how essential the separation of powers remains. Congress creates laws and appropriates funds, the executive branch implements those laws, and the judiciary determines whether governmental actions comply with the Constitution. No president, regardless of party, possesses unlimited authority simply because voters elected that person to office. The Constitution is not an inconvenience to be circumvented whenever it interferes with a political objective; it is the foundation that protects Americans from the unchecked exercise of government power.
We have seen efforts to expand presidential control over federal agencies, alter employment protections, replace senior officials, and challenge the traditional independence of certain government institutions. These developments raise legitimate questions about the ability of the Department of Justice, federal law enforcement agencies, scientific organizations, regulatory bodies, and inspectors general to carry out their responsibilities without improper political interference. A president has the authority to establish lawful executive policies and expect government employees to implement them, but there is an important distinction between loyalty to the Constitution and personal loyalty to a political leader. Investigations should be determined by evidence, regulatory decisions should be grounded in law, and scientific findings should not change because their conclusions are politically inconvenient. Public institutions belong to the American people, not to the individual temporarily occupying the White House, and their integrity must survive changes in political leadership.
We have experienced a continuing erosion of public confidence in political leadership and the institutions upon which our democracy depends. Gallup reported in October 2026 that only 33% of Americans expressed substantial trust in the executive branch, 28% in Congress, and 46% in the judicial branch, reflecting a broader crisis of confidence that has developed over many years and across multiple administrations. Americans increasingly question whether elected officials tell the truth, whether government decisions serve the public interest, and whether powerful individuals are held to the same standards as everyone else. That distrust is intensified when leaders dismiss legitimate questions, attack critics, exaggerate accomplishments, refuse to acknowledge mistakes, or excuse conduct they would condemn if committed by someone from the opposing party. Trust in government cannot be demanded through political loyalty or manufactured through public relations; it must be earned through honesty, transparency, competence, integrity, and accountability.
We have watched political rhetoric become increasingly hostile, with disagreement too often characterized as disloyalty, criticism portrayed as an attack on the nation, and political opponents described as enemies rather than fellow Americans with different views. Instead of addressing the substance of legitimate concerns, public figures and their supporters frequently resort to name calling, personal insults, accusations of dishonesty, and attacks on someone’s intelligence, patriotism, or character. This behavior exists across the political spectrum, but the president carries a particularly significant responsibility because the office represents every American, including those who voted for someone else. We should be able to question government policies, criticize elected officials, and demand evidence without being branded unpatriotic or disloyal. Disagreement is not treason, criticism is not hatred of America, and unquestioning loyalty to any politician should never become the measure of someone’s patriotism.
We have witnessed continuing conflicts involving the credibility and independence of journalists, scientists, educators, universities, and research institutions, including disputes over press access, federal funding, academic independence, and government oversight. During 2025, thousands of federal research grants were terminated or frozen, while the National Institutes of Health experienced a decline in the percentage of research grant applications receiving funding, from approximately 19% in fiscal year 2024 to 13% in fiscal year 2025. News organizations have faced disputes involving White House access, and universities have encountered funding and policy conflicts that raise questions about the relationship between governmental authority and institutional independence. Journalists should be expected to report accurately and correct mistakes, scientists should be subject to rigorous review, and educational institutions should be accountable for their conduct. But challenging an institution with evidence is fundamentally different from undermining its credibility simply because its findings, reporting, or conclusions are politically inconvenient. A healthy society needs independent journalism, credible science, honest education, and a willingness to confront facts even when those facts challenge our preferred beliefs.
We have watched growing uncertainty and tension in America’s relationships with longstanding allies, including Canada, European nations, and other international partners whose cooperation has contributed to our economic prosperity and national security for generations. Trade disputes, tariffs, disagreements over defense spending, changing diplomatic priorities, and uncertainty surrounding American security commitments have complicated relationships that historically provided military cooperation, intelligence sharing, international stability, and economic opportunity. Our relationship with Canada is particularly significant because of our shared border, extensive trade, mutual defense responsibilities, and cooperation through NORAD and NATO. I believe our allies should contribute fairly to collective defense and that American leaders should negotiate agreements that serve our national interests, but successful diplomacy requires more than economic pressure and demands for concessions. American strength is measured not only by our military and economic power, but also by the trust, credibility, and cooperation we maintain with countries that have stood beside us through wars, international crises, and common challenges.
We have witnessed continuing international conflicts that threaten global stability, including Russia’s ongoing war against Ukraine, the humanitarian and security crises throughout the Middle East, and the direct military conflict involving the United States, Israel, and Iran that began in February 2026. These conflicts have resulted in devastating human suffering, destruction of infrastructure, displacement of civilians, pressure on international energy markets, and increasingly difficult questions about American military involvement, financial commitments, and diplomatic priorities. Russia’s aggression against Ukraine continues to threaten European security and challenge the principle that sovereign nations should not have their territory seized by force. Meanwhile, American military operations involving Iran have raised questions about their objectives, duration, cost, and the prospects for achieving a lasting resolution. Not every international conflict can be attributed to American decisions, and protecting our national interests sometimes requires difficult choices, including military action. But when American lives, military resources, taxpayer dollars, and international credibility are at stake, our leaders owe the American people clearly defined objectives, honest explanations, constitutional accountability, and a realistic strategy for achieving peace and security.
We are now involved in an ongoing military conflict with Iran that seems to have no lasting resolution in sight. The United States and Israel launched military operations against Iran on February 28, 2026. Although ceasefire agreements temporarily interrupted the fighting, hostilities resumed, and a durable peace remains elusive. By August 1, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that American military operations had already cost approximately $38 billion. Meanwhile, Americans are left wondering how long this conflict will continue, what it will ultimately cost in lives and resources, and what a realistic end to the fighting actually looks like.
We have watched critical American satellite communications technology used by Ukraine suddenly become restricted, undermining the defensive capabilities of a country we have supported against Russian aggression. In October 2026, Ukrainian forces experienced disruptions to Starlink and Starshield services that interfered with battlefield communications and drone operations. Initial reporting suggested that instructions originated within the White House, while subsequent reporting pointed to Elon Musk and SpaceX. Musk has since acknowledged restrictions on SpaceX service, and Ukraine reports that service has been restored. But serious questions remain about who authorized the decisions, the government’s involvement, and why a nation fighting for its survival was placed at such a disadvantage. Regardless of where the decision originated, I find it deeply troubling that technology Ukraine depends upon could be restricted during an active war.
We have an administration that authorized renewed transactions involving Russian diesel fuel, even while Russia continues its war against Ukraine. On October 9, 2026, the Treasury Department issued General License 135, permitting certain transactions involving the sale, delivery, and importation of Russian diesel. By October 23, Reuters reported that the first shipment of Russian diesel destined for the United States since 2022 was underway. The administration argues that increasing fuel supplies can help reduce energy prices. But Russian energy exports are also a source of revenue for the Russian economy. I believe it is entirely reasonable to question why we would facilitate new business involving Russian fuel while that same country continues prosecuting a destructive war against a nation whose sovereignty we claim to support.
We have a sitting president whose personal wealth has increased by billions of dollars since his election. According to Forbes, Donald Trump’s estimated net worth increased from approximately $4.3 billion around the November 2024 election to approximately $7 billion in September 2026. That represents an estimated increase of $2.7 BILLION. Forbes attributes much of that growth to cryptocurrency ventures, business activities, and overseas deals. Not every dollar of increased wealth necessarily represents wrongdoing, but when the president of the United States is simultaneously exercising enormous governmental authority and maintaining substantial private business interests, I believe the American people have every right to demand transparency, scrutiny, and accountability concerning potential conflicts of interest. Public office should be a public trust, not an opportunity for personal enrichment.
We have seen presidential pardons granted to people convicted of serious crimes, including a former foreign president convicted of conspiring to bring enormous quantities of cocaine into the United States. On December 1, 2025, President Trump pardoned Juan Orlando Hernández, the former president of Honduras. Hernández had been convicted by an American jury and sentenced to 45 years in federal prison for cocaine importation and related weapons offenses. Federal prosecutors established that he used his position to facilitate trafficking involving more than 400 tons of cocaine destined for the United States. Trump argued that Hernández had been unfairly prosecuted. But I cannot reconcile the message that America must wage an aggressive war against drug trafficking with the decision to pardon a former president convicted of facilitating precisely that activity. The president has broad constitutional pardon authority, but having the legal power to do something does not make every exercise of that power wise, ethical, or beyond criticism.
The tendency to excuse today’s wrongdoing by pointing to yesterday’s wrongdoing.
The seemingly endless political finger pointing, personal insults, and refusal to accept accountability.
And perhaps most troubling of all, the growing inability of Americans to recognize that we can disagree about politics without becoming enemies.
Not every problem began with this administration, and not every problem can be blamed on one president or one political party. Our country has faced serious challenges for years. But the people holding power today have a responsibility to address today’s problems, not simply point backward to excuse them.
And at some point, we have to stop pretending that pointing to somebody else’s wrongdoing somehow makes today’s conduct acceptable.
Get Patrick Keith Williams’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
I don’t care whether a president is a Republican or a Democrat. I don’t care whether the conduct involves a politician I supported or someone I opposed.
If the conduct is wrong, it is wrong.
If it violates the law, it should be investigated and addressed through the legal system.
If it represents an abuse of power, it should be challenged.
If it involves conflicts of interest or misuse of public office, it deserves scrutiny and accountability.
And if our leaders are making decisions that damage our national interests, weaken our alliances, undermine our institutions, or betray the principles we claim to stand for, those decisions deserve honest examination, not unquestioning political loyalty.
This behavior needs to be stopped, and where wrongdoing is established, those responsible need to be held accountable.
That isn’t a partisan position. It is a standard of conduct that should apply to everyone.
I don’t believe America’s problems are beyond repair. I don’t believe our disagreements are irreconcilable. And I certainly don’t believe that the values that made this nation worth believing in have disappeared.
I still believe in honesty, integrity, personal responsibility, compassion, the Constitution, the rule of law, and equal accountability for everyone, regardless of whether there is a D or an R after their name.
I want an America where decency isn’t considered weakness, where compassion isn’t mistaken for surrender, where patriotism doesn’t require unquestioning loyalty to a politician, and where holding our leaders accountable isn’t confused with hating our country.
I want an America where we can once again disagree respectfully, debate ideas honestly, acknowledge facts, admit mistakes, and work toward solutions rather than constantly searching for someone else to blame.
Because ultimately, I think most Americans want many of the same things: a safe home, meaningful work, affordable healthcare, financial security, opportunities for their children, peace in their communities, and confidence that tomorrow can be better than today.
Those aren’t Republican dreams or Democratic dreams.
They’re American dreams.
And that brings me back to President Trump’s words.
“A healthy person has a thousand dreams. A sick person has only one (to get better)!”
America still has a thousand dreams worth pursuing.
But right now, my greatest hope is that we find the wisdom, courage, compassion, and common purpose to become a healthier nation.
And getting better requires more than wishing things were different. It requires recognizing what is wrong, refusing to excuse it, demanding accountability, and having the courage to change what needs to be changed.
We cannot heal a divided nation by continually deepening its divisions.
We cannot restore trust by defending dishonesty.
We cannot strengthen the rule of law by making excuses for those who disregard it.
We cannot preach accountability while exempting our preferred politicians from it.
And we cannot claim to value American principles if we are unwilling to defend those principles when doing so becomes politically inconvenient.
Yes, Mr. President, I agree with you. A sick person has only one dream: to get better.
And perhaps that is where America finds itself today.
Not because we have lost everything that makes this country great, but because we have allowed too much of what makes it great to become secondary to political loyalty, personal interests, and the pursuit of power.
We need to get better. We deserve to get better. And I still believe we can get better.
Not a Republican America.
Not a Democratic America.
Just a better America. For all of us.
Because before we can pursue all those dreams, we need to remember how to get better together.
