Politics
News Analysis: Trump consistently frames policy around 'fairness,' trading on American frustration
In a sit-down interview with Fox News last month, President Trump and his billionaire “efficiency” advisor Elon Musk framed new tariffs on foreign trading partners as a simple matter of fairness.
“I said, ‘Here’s what we’re going to do: reciprocal. Whatever you charge, I’m charging,’” Trump said of a conversation he’d had with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. “I’m doing that with every country.”
“It seems fair,” Musk said.
Trump laughed. “It does,” he said.
“It’s like, fair is fair,” said Musk, the world’s richest person.
The moment was one of many in recent months in which Trump and his allies have framed his policy agenda around the concept of fairness — which experts say is a potent political message at a time when many Americans feel thwarted by inflation, high housing costs and other systemic barriers to getting ahead.
“Trump has a good sense for what will resonate with folks, and I think we all have a deep sense of morality — and so we all recognize the importance of fairness,” said Kurt Gray, a psychology professor at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and author of the book “Outraged: Why We Fight About Morality and Politics and How to Find Common Ground.”
“At the end of the day,” Gray said, “we’re always worried about not getting what we deserve.”
In addition to his “Fair and Reciprocal Plan” for tariffs, Trump has cited fairness in his decisions to pull out of the Paris climate agreement, ban transgender athletes from competing in sports, scale back American aid to embattled Ukraine and pardon his supporters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
Trump has invoked fairness in meetings with a host of world leaders, including Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. He has suggested that his crusade to end “diversity, equity and inclusion” programs is all about fairness, couched foreign aid and assistance to undocumented immigrants as unfair to struggling American taxpayers, and attacked the Justice Department, the media and federal judges who have ruled against his administration as harboring unfair biases against him.
Trump and Musk — through his “Department of Government Efficiency,” which is not a U.S. agency — have orchestrated a sweeping attack on the federal workforce largely by framing it as a liberal “deep state” that either works in unfair ways against the best interests of conservative Americans, or doesn’t work at all thanks to lopsided work-from-home allowances.
“It’s unfair to the millions of people in the United States who are, in fact, working hard from job sites and not from their home,” Trump said.
In a Justice Department speech this month, Trump repeatedly complained about the courts treating him and his allies unfairly, and reiterated baseless claims that recent elections have been unfair to him, too.
“We want fairness in the courts. The courts are a big factor. The elections, which were totally rigged, are a big factor,” Trump said. “We have to have honest elections. We have to have borders and we have to have courts and law that’s fair, or we’re not going to have a country.”
Before a meeting with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte this month, Trump complained — not for the first time — about European countries not paying their “fair share” to defend Ukraine against Russian aggression, and the U.S. paying too much.
“We were treated very unfairly, as we always are by every country,” Trump said.
Almost exclusively, Trump’s invocations of fairness cast him, his supporters or the U.S. as victims, and his critics and political opponents as the architects and defenders of a decidedly unfair status quo that has persisted for generations. And he has repeatedly used that framework to justify actions that he says are aimed at tearing down that status quo — even if it means breaching norms or bucking the law.
Trump has suggested that unfavorable media coverage of him is unfair and therefore “illegal,” and that judges who rule against him are unfair liberal activists who should be impeached.
The politics of feeling heard
Of course, grievance politics are not new — nor is the importance of “fairness” in democratic governance. In 2006, the late Harvard scholar of political behavior Sidney Verba wrote of fairness being important in various political regimes but “especially central in a democracy.”
Verba noted that fairness comes in different forms — including equal rights under the law, equal voice in the political sphere, and policies that result in equal outcomes for people. But the perception of fairness in a political system, he wrote, often comes down to whether people feel heard.
“Democracies are sounder when the reason why some lose does not rest on the fact that they are invisible to those who make decisions,” Verba wrote. “Equal treatment may be unattainable, but equal consideration is a goal worth striving for.”
According to several experts, Trump’s appeal is in part based on his ability to make average people feel heard, regardless of whether his policies actually speak to their needs.
Gray said there is “distributive fairness,” which asks, “Are you getting as much as you deserve?” and “procedural fairness,” which asks, “Are things being decided in a fair way? Did you get voice? Did you get input?”
One of Trump’s skills, Gray said, is using people’s inherent sense that there is a lack of distributive fairness in the country to justify policies that have little to do with such inequities, and to undermine processes that are in place to ensure procedural fairness, such as judicial review, but aren’t producing the outcomes he personally desires.
“What Trump does a good job at is blurring the line between rules you can follow or shouldn’t follow,” he said. “When he disobeys the rules and gets called out, he goes, ‘Well those moral rules are unjust.’”
People who voted for Trump and have legitimate feelings that things are unfair then give him the benefit of the doubt, Gray said, because he appears to be speaking their language — and on their behalf.
“He’s not just saying that it’s him. He’s saying it’s on behalf of the people he’s representing, and the people he’s representing do think things are unfair,” Gray said. “They’re not getting enough in their life, and they’re not getting their due.”
Lawrence Rosenthal, chair of the Center for Right-Wing Studies at UC Berkeley and author of “Empire of Resentment: Populism’s Toxic Embrace of Nationalism,” said Trump and his supporters have built him up as a leader “interested in fixing the unfairness to the working class.”
But that idea is premised on another notion, even more central to Trump’s persona, that there are “enemies” out there — Democrats, coastal elites, immigrants — who are the cause of that unfairness, Rosenthal said.
“He names enemies, and he’s very good at that — as all right-wing authoritarians are,” Rosenthal said.
Such politics are based on a concept known as “replacement theory,” which tells people to fear others because there are only so many resources to go around, Rosenthal said. The theory dovetails with the argument Trump often makes, that undocumented immigrants receiving jobs or benefits is an inherent threat to his MAGA base.
“The sense of dispossession is absolutely fundamental and has been for some time,” Rosenthal said.
John T. Woolley, co-director of the American Presidency Project at UC Santa Barbara, said Trump has “a remarkable capacity for constructing the world in a way that favors him” — even if that’s as the victim — and appears to be an “outlier” among presidents in terms of how often he focuses on fairness as a political motif.
“Certainly since his first term with impeachment, ‘the Russia hoax,’ ‘dishonest media,’ ‘fake news’ and then ‘weaponizing’ of justice — he’s constructed a kind of victim persona, in battle with the deep state, that is now really basic to his interaction with his core MAGA constituency,” Woolley said.
An idea for Democrats
In coming to terms with Trump’s win in November, Democrats have increasingly acknowledged his ability to speak to Americans who feel left behind — and started to pick up on fairness as a motif of their own, in part by zeroing in on mega-billionaire Musk.
In an interview with NPR last month, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) evoked the idea of unfairness in the system by saying American government is working for rich people like Musk, but not for everyone else. “Everything feels increasingly like a scam,” she said.
She and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) have since embarked on a nationwide “Fighting Oligarchy” tour, where they have blasted Musk’s role in government and questioned how his actions, or those of Trump, have helped average Americans in the slightest.
“At the end of the day, the top 1% may have enormous wealth and power, but they are just 1%,” Sanders wrote Friday on X. “When the 99% stand together, we can transform our country.”
J. Bennett Johnston Jr., a Louisiana Democrat and four-term United States senator who helped shape America’s energy and science policies in an era of rising concerns over the perils of nuclear power and the nation’s dependence on foreign oil, died on Tuesday in Arlington, Va. He was 92.
His death was confirmed by his son J. Bennett Johnston III.
One of a new breed of polished Southern Democrats that included Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, Mr. Johnston served in the Senate from 1972 to 1997, a tenure that included Middle East conflicts that threatened American oil imports, and nuclear licensing and safety changes in the aftermath of the nation’s worst nuclear accident, the partial reactor meltdown at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979.
A target of environmentalists’ wrath, he favored more nuclear power plants, although public safety concerns limited new construction for decades. But he won fights to sharply expand oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, the major offshore petroleum-producing area for the United States, and sponsored laws to let coastal states share federal revenue from offshore drilling.
As chairman or a ranking member of the energy and natural resources committee from 1973 to 1996, he was involved in virtually all Senate energy legislation, from rewriting the nuclear licensing provisions of federal law to developing synthetic fuels and deregulating oil and natural gas prices to spur production. It was a delicate balancing act for a senator from a state with ferociously competing energy interests.
In a state also renowned for flamboyant politicians like Huey and Earl Long and corrupt rogues like former Gov. Edwin W. Edwards, Mr. Johnston was a notable exception — a quiet intellectual with finely honed political judgments who grasped the technical intricacies of energy exploration and production and could also lucidly discuss astrophysics, subatomic particles and tennis serves.
A trim, athletic man with receding hair, Mr. Johnston — an inveterate apple muncher who was said to be the Senate’s most avid tennis player in his 50s — was an approachable, friendly man, responsive to questions and easy to talk to or negotiate with.
His voting was not based on loyalties. Colleagues said he switched sides according to his views on the merits of proposed legislation. He advocated higher gas-mileage standards for auto manufacturers, but opposed President Ronald Reagan’s strategic defense initiative — a plan to use weapons in space to protect America from nuclear attack — calling it ill-conceived and too costly.
On international policy, he often sided with liberals in support of the United Nations and foreign aid. But he joined conservatives in opposing abortion and most gun-control measures, and championed a 1981 bill to limit busing for racial integration in public schools to five miles or 15 minutes. The measure died in the House of Representatives.
In Senate fights over candidates for the Supreme Court, Mr. Johnston helped lead a 1987 rejection of Robert H. Bork as President Reagan’s nominee, but broke with his party in 1991 to support confirmation of President George H.W. Bush’s nominee, Clarence Thomas.
In 1988, with Democrats in control of the Senate and Robert F. Byrd of West Virginia stepping down as their leader after a decade, Mr. Johnston and Senator Daniel K. Inouye of Hawaii ran for majority leader, the Senate’s most powerful post. Both lost to Senator George J. Mitchell of Maine.
Mr. Johnston’s support for higher education landed $110 million for five national research centers at universities in Louisiana. He crusaded for years for billions for the Superconducting Super Collider, a pure research particle accelerator, in Texas, to search for fleeting subatomic structures. “It was lynched by the know-nothings,” he said when the project was canceled in 1993.
“I’m interested in understanding where the universe came from and where it’s going,” Mr. Johnston told Physics Today magazine in 1996. “I’m interested in the Higgs boson, which high-energy physicists hope to find if it exists at all, and, like them, I also hope the search produces surprises.” (In 2012, scientists announced that they had discovered a new subatomic particle that appeared to be the Higgs boson.)
John Bennett Johnston Jr., who rarely used his first name, was born in Shreveport, La., on June 10, 1932, to John Bennett Johnston Sr., a lawyer, and the former Wilma Lyon. He graduated from Shreveport schools and attended the United States Military Academy at West Point and Washington and Lee University before graduating from law school at Louisiana State University in 1956.
He married Mary Gunn the same year. They had four children: J. Bennett Johnston III, Hunter Johnston, Mary Johnston Norriss and Sally Roemer.
In the Army from 1956 to 1959, he became a first lieutenant with the Judge Advocate General’s Corps in Germany. After practicing law in Shreveport for several years, he began his political career in 1964 with election to the Louisiana House of Representatives. In 1968 he won a four-year term in the State Senate.
In a state dominated by Democrats, with nominations tantamount to election, Mr. Johnston in 1971 ran for governor, but narrowly lost the nomination to Representative Edwin Edwards, who then won the first of his four terms as governor. Mr. Edwards later went to jail for eight years for bribery and extortion. In 1972, Mr. Johnston contested the renomination of United States Senator Allen J. Ellender, who had held his seat since 1936 as a protégé of the assassinated Senator Huey P. Long.
But Mr. Ellender died during the campaign. Mr. Edwards named his own wife to the seat pending a special election, and Mr. Johnston won the nomination and the general election. He was re-elected in 1978 and again in 1984 against token opposition, despite a landslide for President Reagan that hurt other Democrats.
Mr. Johnston’s last campaign, in 1990, was his toughest — against David Duke, a former Ku Klux Klan leader who had become a popular state legislator. Even by Louisiana’s baroque political standards, the race was strange: a powerful three-term Democratic incumbent overshadowed by a political neophyte who had not sponsored a single bill in the Louisiana Legislature.
Mr. Duke dominated the campaign with appeals to white resentment over affirmative action and welfare programs, and allusions to his racially charged agenda. But his candidacy and his past associations with white supremacy groups were widely condemned, and Mr. Johnston won a fourth term.
When that term ended in January 1997, Mr. Johnston, who lived in McLean, Va., retired from politics and founded Johnston & Associates, a Washington a lobbying firm that later went out of business.
Mr. Johnston’s son said that he is survived by his wife, his four children and 10 grandchildren.
Yan Zhuang contributed reporting.
Politics
Hegseth fends off reporter’s questions about Signal chat leak: 'I know exactly what I'm doing'
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Tuesday fended off a reporter’s questions about a leaked Signal chat group involving Trump administration officials discussing forthcoming strikes on the Houthis in Yemen.
Hegseth was asked during a press gaggle in Hawaii if the information was declassified before he put it in the Signal chat and if he was using the messaging platform to discuss operations as sensitive as the strikes against the Houthis on a government or a personal device.
Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, said he received a request to join the group chat on the encrypted messaging service Signal on March 11 from what appeared to be the president’s National Security Advisor Michael Waltz. Goldberg released screenshots of some of the message exchanges he observed.
Goldberg reported that officials were discussing “war plans” in the group chat called “Houthi PC Small Group,” but he decided not to publish some of the highly sensitive information he saw, including precise information about weapons packages, targets and timing, due to potential threats to national security and military operations.
TRUMP OFFICIALS ACCIDENTALLY TEXT ATLANTIC JOURNALIST ABOUT MILITARY STRIKES IN APPARENT SECURITY BREACH
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said he knew “exactly” what he was doing after a journalist was mistakenly added to a group chat with senior officials. (REUTERS/Yves Herman)
Speaking in Hawaii Tuesday, Hegseth said the strikes against the Houthis that night were “devastatingly effective.”
“I’m incredibly proud of the courage and skill of the troops. And they are ongoing and continue to be devastatingly effective,” he said. “The last place I would want to be right now is a Houthi in Yemen who wants to disrupt freedom of navigation, so the skill and courage of our troops is on full display.”
“It’s a complete opposite approach from the fecklessness of the Biden administration,” he continued.
The secretary also repeated his claims that “nobody was texting war plans,” pushing back on Goldberg’s assertion.
“As I also stated yesterday, nobody’s texting war plans, and that’s all I have to say about that,” Hegseth said.
Pressed by a reporter about whether he regrets leaking information in the Signal chat that could have put the lives of U.S. troops at risk, Hegseth claimed he has everything under control.
“Nobody’s texting war plans,” he reiterated. “I know exactly what I’m doing, exactly what we’re directing, and I’m really proud of what we accomplished, the successful missions that night and going forward.”
Goldberg reported that 18 people were listed in the Signal group, including Hegseth, Waltz, Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles.
TRUMP NOT PLANNING TO FIRE WALTZ AFTER NATIONAL SECURITY TEXT CHAIN LEAK
Jeffrey Goldberg reported that administration officials were discussing “war plans” in a Signal group chat called “Houthi PC Small Group.” ( Jemal Countess/Getty Images for The Atlantic)
Ratcliffe also put the name of a CIA undercover agent into the Signal chat, Goldberg reported.
The editor has described Hegseth’s denial as a “lie,” citing messages he read that laid out a specific time for the attack, human targets, weapon systems and weather reports. He has also said he is considering whether to publish more messages to back up his reporting, as Hegseth and other Trump administration officials seek to discredit him.
Hegseth had earlier criticized Goldberg as “a deceitful and highly discredited, so-called journalist who’s made a profession of peddling hoaxes time and time again, to include the … hoaxes of Russia, Russia, Russia, or the fine people on both sides hoax or suckers and losers hoax. So this guy is garbage.”
But the White House has confirmed that the group chat “appears to be an authentic message chain.”
“This appears to be an authentic message chain, and we are reviewing how an inadvertent number was added to the chain,” White House National Security Council spokesman Brian Hughes said in a statement. “The thread is a demonstration of the deep and thoughtful policy coordination between senior officials. The ongoing success of the Houthi operation demonstrates that there were no threats to troops or national security.”
The article said 18 people were listed in the Signal group, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. (Reuters/Kevin Lamarque)
The Signal chat has been panned as a massive breach of national security, and many have noted that senior officials are not supposed to discuss detailed military plans outside special secure facilities or protected government communications networks.
Watchdog group American Oversight has sued Hegseth and other officials who were in the group chat, arguing that they failed to meet their obligations under the Federal Records Act by using Signal to communicate and plan active military operations.
Also on Tuesday, amid scrutiny over the Signal chat, Hegseth participated in some physical training with Navy SEALs.
“Kicked off the day alongside the warriors of SDVT-1 at @JointBasePHH,” he wrote on X. “These SEALs are the tip of the spear, masters of stealth, endurance, and lethality. America’s enemies fear them—our allies trust them. Proud to spend time with America’s best.”
Senior government officials mistakenly invited the editor in chief of the Atlantic to a group chat on the messaging app Signal, where the focus of conversation was U.S. airstrikes against rebel groups in Yemen. The app’s use by high-ranking national security officials has raised the question: Just how secure is Signal anyway?
On March 11, Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic was accidentally invited by the Trump administration’s national security advisor to connect on Signal. In the following days, Goldberg was added to a group chat that spoke of “operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying and attack sequencing,” according to his reporting.
Signal is a free app that cybersecurity experts consider to be one of the most secure messaging services because of its end-to-end encryption.
Simply put, text messages or calls are seen only by you, the sender and whoever is in your Signal group chat.
“We can’t read your messages or listen to your calls, and no one else can either,” the Signal website states.
If you’re using only your smartphone’s default messaging app, such as Apple’s iMessage or Google Messages, there is a chance your messages won’t be secure. This happens when you’re an iPhone user who texts an Android user, because you’re messaging from different platforms. Messages are end-to-end encrypted only if both people are using the same app.
Signal also touts user protection because it doesn’t use ads and doesn’t track user data. It collects only minimal user data, such as your phone number, the date you joined Signal and the last date you logged on to the app.
Aside from top government officials, journalists and advocates use the app, but it’s not limited to these groups of people.
With Signal in the news, experts are weighing in on whether the average user should consider it as an option for your everyday communication.
Why should you care about encrypted messaging?
Encrypted messaging “protects more than national secrets; it protects everyday privacy,” said Vahid Behzadan, assistant professor of cybersecurity and networks, data and computer science at the University of New Haven.
Most people unknowingly share sensitive information via text, such as personal addresses, passwords for Netflix and other accounts, or photos, according to Iskander Sanchez-Rola, director of artificial intelligence and innovation for Norton.
Encrypted apps ensure your messages are seen only by the person you intended to reach — and not third parties. That also means your “internet service provider or any potential malicious actors on your network won’t be able to see them either,” Sanchez-Rola said.
Cybercriminals are paying attention to your messages.
In December the FBI and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency stated that hackers affiliated with China’s government, called Salt Typhoon, waged an attack on commercial telecommunications companies to steal users’ data and prompted federal authorities to recommend everyone use only end-to-end encrypted communications.
“Ninety percent of all cyberthreats now originate from scams and social engineering threats — a figure that has almost tripled since 2021,” Sanchez-Rola said. “Everyday activities like forwarding messages or even clicking links and attachments can open the door to risks if your information isn’t properly protected.”
By using a messaging app that ensures end-to-end encryption, Behzadan said, you’re protecting yourself from data breaches and identity theft, and corporate tracking and targeted advertising, and ensuring confidentiality in professional or legal communications, freedom from surveillance or unauthorized access, and insurance against potential policy or government changes that may erode privacy rights.
“In short, encryption helps preserve digital dignity and autonomy in an increasingly connected world,” he said.
How is Signal a standout from other messaging apps when it comes to privacy?
All communications (messages, calls and video chats) are end-to-end encrypted by default, so you don’t have to go out of your way to ensure it’s a feature,” Behzadan said.
Unlike many platforms, Signal does not store metadata about who users communicate with, when or where.
“Its encryption protocol, the open-source Signal Protocol, is widely regarded as the gold standard in secure messaging and is even used by WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger for certain chats,” he said.
Signal’s nonprofit structure also sets it apart: The organization doesn’t monetize user data, which reduces incentives for surveillance or advertising-driven features.
Sanchez-Rola added a few more features that amplify securing your privacy:
- Screenshot blocker. This prevents malicious apps on your phone from accessing screenshots, but doesn’t prevent other people from taking screenshots of your conversations.
- Disappearing messages. Messages automatically delete after a set time, configurable from five seconds to four weeks, after they’ve been read. So even if a malicious app gains access to your phone, it won’t be able to retrieve messages that have been deleted.
- Single-view media. This allows you to send photos, videos and voice messages that are automatically deleted from the recipient’s device after they’ve been opened once.
- Incognito keyboard. This prevents third-party keyboard apps from potentially collecting data about your typing, offering an extra layer of privacy, especially when sending sensitive information.
- Usernames versus phone numbers. You can talk to people on Signal without needing to know their phone number — just by using their Signal username. This provides an extra layer of privacy.
How effective is Signal in protecting your privacy?
Signal’s terms of service state you “are responsible for keeping your device and your Signal account safe and secure.”
“The effectiveness of encryption isn’t just about the technology; it also depends on how individuals use it. Encryption works best as part of a larger cybersecurity strategy,” Sanchez-Rola said.
Behzadan shared a few important best practices. They include:
- Enabling disappearing messages for sensitive chats.
- Verifying safety numbers with trusted contacts.
- Setting a strong PIN or enabling biometric lock.
- Keeping the app and device updated.
- Avoiding screenshots or storing sensitive info on unsecured devices.
“The recent incident involving U.S. officials underscores this: Even the most secure technology can’t prevent human error, like adding the wrong person to a group chat,” Behzadan said. “In cybersecurity, the weakest link is often the human element.”
What are other encrypted messaging apps?
While Signal is the top recommendation among security experts, other apps offer encrypted messaging with varying trade-offs:
- WhatsApp: Uses the Signal Protocol but is owned by Meta and collects more metadata.
- Threema: A Swiss-based app that doesn’t require a phone number and focuses on privacy, though it has a smaller user base.
- Element (Matrix protocol): A decentralized and open-source option, popular among tech-savvy communities.
- Wickr: Used in enterprise and government settings and now owned by Amazon.
The best choice depends on your specific needs, your threat model and what platforms your contacts use, because encryption works only if both parties use the same secure platform.
Top takeaways from Mayor Mike Duggan’s final State of the City address
San Francisco Giants Add Former A’s Reliever to Roster
Dallas Cowboys’ Brian Schottenheimer, Matt Eberflus attend high-profile Pro Day
Will Lionel Messi Play for Inter Miami vs. Philadelphia Union?
Hey, ‘Daily Show’: Stop calling Boston the most racist city in America. It’s not funny. – The Boston Globe
-
News1 week agoTrump Administration Ends Tracking of Kidnapped Ukrainian Children in Russia
-
News1 week agoVance to Lead G.O.P. Fund-Raising, an Apparent First for a Vice President
-
Business1 week agoEgg Prices Have Dropped, Though You May Not Have Noticed
-
Technology1 week agoThe head of a Biden program that could help rural broadband has left
-
Technology1 week agoDude Perfect and Mark Rober may be the next YouTubers to get big streaming deals
-
World1 week agoCommission warns Alphabet and Apple they're breaking EU digital rules
-
News7 days agoTrump’s Ending of Hunter Biden’s Security Detail Raises Questions About Who Gets Protection
-
News1 week agoU.S. to Withdraw From Group Investigating Responsibility for Ukraine Invasion