The judicial system serves as the backbone of democracy, ensuring fairness, accountability, and the rule of law. However, when influential figures display a selective approach to justice—dismissing its authority in some cases while demanding its protection in others—it raises profound questions about the future of legality and public trust in the system. Former President Donald Trump's actions and rhetoric exemplify this duality, and their potential long-term effects warrant careful examination.

In February 2025, President Donald Trump implemented a series of tariffs aimed at reducing trade deficits and encouraging domestic manufacturing. These measures included a 25% tariff on imports from Mexico and Canada, and an increase from 10% to 20% on Chinese goods. Contrary to their intended purpose, these tariffs have adversely affected the American economy, leading to increased consumer prices, strained international relations, and disruptions across various industries.

In February 2025, President Donald Trump implemented a series of tariffs aimed at reducing trade deficits and encouraging domestic manufacturing. These measures included a 25% tariff on imports from Mexico and Canada, and an increase from 10% to 20% on Chinese goods. Contrary to their intended purpose, these tariffs have adversely affected the American economy, leading to increased consumer prices, strained international relations, and disruptions across various industries.

In February 2025, President Donald Trump implemented a series of tariffs aimed at reducing trade deficits and encouraging domestic manufacturing. These measures included a 25% tariff on imports from Mexico and Canada, and an increase from 10% to 20% on Chinese goods. Contrary to their intended purpose, these tariffs have adversely affected the American economy, leading to increased consumer prices, strained international relations, and disruptions across various industries.

The recent developments surrounding Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and its access to confidential personal and economic data of U.S. citizens have sparked significant legal and ethical debates. Concerns center on the legality of such access, potential violations of privacy, and the accountability mechanisms in place to protect individuals from any resultant harm.

In February 2025, President Donald Trump implemented a series of tariffs aimed at reducing trade deficits and encouraging domestic manufacturing. These measures included a 25% tariff on imports from Mexico and Canada, and an increase from 10% to 20% on Chinese goods. Contrary to their intended purpose, these tariffs have adversely affected the American economy, leading to increased consumer prices, strained international relations, and disruptions across various industries.

The recent developments surrounding Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and its access to confidential personal and economic data of U.S. citizens have sparked significant legal and ethical debates. Concerns center on the legality of such access, potential violations of privacy, and the accountability mechanisms in place to protect individuals from any resultant harm.

After spending considerable time educating myself by analyzing the various essays found on onthefenceusa.com, I am now ready to jump off the fence. As someone who has often found themselves torn between conflicting political ideologies, this decision didn’t come easily. However, throughout my process of reflection, there was one issue I kept returning to—an issue that I believe has deeply divided our country: the storming of the Capitol on January 6th, 2021. The more I reflect on that tragic day, the more convinced I become that former President Donald Trump is responsible for this horror.

When evaluating the cognitive abilities of presidential candidates, it’s important to focus on observable facts, medical evaluations (where available), and public statements rather than relying on speculation or politically motivated rhetoric. Both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump have had their cognitive abilities questioned by opponents at various times, but neither candidate has been diagnosed with cognitive impairment by qualified medical professionals.

In the context of the 2024 presidential election, both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump have faced legal scrutiny, though the nature and extent of their legal problems differ significantly. Harris, as a public official, has faced some legal challenges related to her tenure in various governmental roles, but she has not been personally convicted of any crimes. In contrast, Donald Trump has been at the center of numerous legal battles, both civil and criminal, with some cases leading to convictions or guilty verdicts in civil trials. This essay explores the factual background of each candidate’s legal issues, focusing on their implications for their respective campaigns.