Category: Article Summaries

One-Sentence Summary: The Wall Street Journal editorial criticizes the Trump administration’s recent deportation of gang members without due process, warning against disregarding legal boundaries in immigration enforcement.

The editorial discusses President Trump’s decision to deport nearly 300 alleged gang members from Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua and El Salvador’s MS-13 without legal proceedings. The administration justified the action by invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a rarely used law not applied since World War II. Trump argued that the U.S. is at war with these gangs, but no formal congressional resolution supports this claim.

A federal judge, James Boasberg, issued an order to block the deportations while evaluating the legality of using the Alien Enemies Act. However, the administration proceeded, stating that flights had already taken off. The judge then ordered the planes to be turned around, though the timeline of events remains unclear. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt denied that the administration defied the order, but Trump’s immigration adviser Tom Homan stated, “We’re not stopping.”

The editorial raises concerns about the potential constitutional crisis if the administration openly defies court orders. Additionally, it critiques Trump’s reliance on El Salvador’s president, Nayib Bukele, who has been accused of violating due process in his own country. The U.S. paid El Salvador $6 million to detain the deported gang members, who were immediately imprisoned in Bukele’s notorious high-security facility.

Despite Trump’s electoral promise to deport criminal migrants, the editorial warns that disregarding legal norms undermines the rule of law, drawing parallels to the Biden administration’s controversial use of executive power.

The Editorial Board. “Trump, Deportations and the Law.” The Wall Street Journal, 18 Mar. 2025, www.wsj.com/opinion/trump-deportations-gang-members-james-boasberg-tom-homan-nayib-bukele-ms-13-tren-de-aragua-6e377106.

Key Takeaways:

• Trump deported nearly 300 alleged gang members without legal proceedings, invoking the Alien Enemies Act.
• A federal judge attempted to halt the deportations, but the administration proceeded, citing logistical constraints.
• Concerns arise over constitutional issues and the administration’s willingness to bypass court orders.
• Trump’s partnership with El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele, known for his harsh anti-gang policies, is controversial.
• The editorial warns that ignoring legal norms in immigration enforcement could set a dangerous precedent.

Key Quotations:

• “We’re not stopping. I don’t care what the judges think, I don’t care what the left thinks, we’re coming.” – Tom Homan, Trump’s immigration czar.
• “The administration ‘did not refuse to comply with a court order.’” – White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt.
• “He [Trump] has to do it within the bounds of American law, or he will take the country down a dangerous road.” – The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board.

Word Count of Summary: 297
Word Count of Original Article: Approx. 900

Model Version: GPT-4-turbo
Custom GPT Name: Summarizer 2

One-sentence summary: President Trump and his administration argue that short-term economic pain, including a possible recession, is a necessary sacrifice for long-term economic goals, but economists largely reject his policies as harmful rather than beneficial.

President Trump and his advisers have recently suggested that a recession might be an acceptable price to pay for their economic agenda, which includes tariffs and efforts to bring manufacturing back to the U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent have framed this as a necessary transition period, while Trump himself has promised a new “golden age” for America. However, inflation remains persistent, consumer and business confidence has declined, and stock prices have dropped, largely due to Trump’s policies and the uncertainty they create.

Trump’s administration argues that reducing imports and focusing on domestic manufacturing will ultimately benefit American workers, despite short-term hardships. Conservative policy advocate Oren Cass supports the idea of enduring temporary economic pain for long-term prosperity but criticizes the administration’s inconsistent approach to tariffs. Many economists reject Trump’s policies, with Harvard’s Greg Mankiw stating that they offer “short-term pain to get more long-term pain.” Broad tariffs not only raise consumer prices but also increase costs for domestic manufacturers, undermining efforts to boost U.S. industry.

The administration also claims the economy has become too reliant on government spending, with Bessent advocating for deficit reduction. While economists agree that deficits should be reduced, they argue that Trump’s policies-cutting Medicaid while extending tax cuts-will likely increase the deficit rather than shrink it. These cuts, along with tariffs, disproportionately hurt low- and middle-income Americans, including many Trump voters. Experts warn that a recession would hit the most vulnerable workers the hardest, particularly Black and Hispanic communities, and could have lasting negative effects on job prospects and economic stability.

Casselman, Ben. “Trump Says a Recession Would Be Worth It, but Economists Are Skeptical.” The New York Times, 18 Mar. 2025, www.nytimes.com/2025/03/18/business/economy/trump-recession-tariffs-inflation.html.

Key takeaways:

• Trump and his advisers suggest a recession might be necessary for long-term economic improvements.
• Economists warn that Trump’s tariffs and economic policies could worsen inflation and harm both consumers and businesses.
• Reducing imports may not benefit American workers as much as the administration claims, as tariffs raise production costs.
• Cutting government spending while extending tax cuts could increase the deficit rather than reduce it.
• The economic pain from these policies would disproportionately hurt low- and middle-income Americans, particularly minorities.

Important quotations:

• “It’s the kind of language that you use when your policy isn’t going great and you can see that it’s actively harming people.” – Sean Vanatta, financial historian
• “Short-term pain for long-term gain is not a crazy idea in and of itself, but Trump’s trade policies are short-term pain to get more long-term pain.” – Greg Mankiw, Harvard economist
• “Making things in America is much harder when all the inputs are more expensive.” – Kimberly Clausing, UCLA professor
• “It’s really hard to see how the Trump voters come out ahead.” – Kimberly Clausing
• “To talk about causing temporary harm ignores the fact that people will be feeling the results of decisions that this administration makes for years to come.” – Jessica Fulton, Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies

Word count (summary): 395
Word count (original): 1,721

Model version: GPT-4-turbo
Custom GPT name: Summarizer 2

One-sentence summary: The White House’s justification for shutting down Voice of America (VOA) relies on misleading or weak claims that fail to support its assertion that the broadcaster engaged in “radical propaganda.”

The article examines the White House’s rationale for shutting down VOA, an 83-year-old news organization known for its fair and independent reporting, which reached 360 million people worldwide. The administration cited ten instances of alleged bias or wrongdoing, but a closer analysis reveals these claims are either exaggerated, misleading, or misrepresented.

For example, the White House accused VOA of prohibiting the use of “terrorist” when describing Hamas, but in reality, VOA’s policy aligned with the Associated Press Stylebook, which recommends describing acts rather than labeling groups. Other allegations included VOA reporters expressing anti-Trump sentiments on social media-though there was no evidence this impacted coverage-and a conservative lawsuit alleging pro-Islamic State bias, which never gained traction.

Additional claims focused on individual cases of poor judgment, such as a VOA Urdu-language video that resembled a Biden campaign ad. However, VOA quickly removed the video and took disciplinary action. Similarly, the administration criticized a 2019 segment on transgender migrants, despite it being a routine news report at the time. Another accusation involved VOA allegedly cutting short an interview with a Chinese dissident under government pressure, but multiple investigations found no such interference.

The White House also referenced reporting errors, lawsuits, and accusations by conservative outlets, but most of these claims lacked concrete evidence or were misrepresented. The article concludes that the administration’s reasoning for shuttering VOA is largely baseless and appears politically motivated rather than factually justified.

Kessler, Glenn. “The White House’s Flimsy Attack on Voice of America.” The Washington Post, 18 Mar. 2025, www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/03/18/trump-voa-doge-close-fact-checker.

Key takeaways:

• The White House shut down VOA, calling it a source of “radical propaganda.”
• Many of the administration’s claims against VOA were exaggerated or misleading.
• VOA’s Hamas reporting followed standard journalistic guidelines, not bias.
• Social media posts by employees did not affect VOA’s editorial independence.
• Some errors, such as a Biden campaign video, were promptly corrected.
• Investigations found no evidence of Chinese government interference in VOA coverage.
• The administration’s justification for closing VOA appears politically motivated.

Important quotations:

• “President Donald J. Trump’s executive order on Friday will ensure that taxpayers are no longer on the hook for radical propaganda.”
• “There is no policy prohibiting the use of the words ‘terror,’ ‘terrorism,’ or ‘terrorist’” at VOA.
• “Top VOA officials… found it violated the network’s editorial policies and ordered it taken down.”
• “The investigations found no evidence to support allegations that pressure from the Chinese government… had caused the termination.”

Word count of summary: 366
Word count of original article: 1,372

Model version: GPT-4-turbo
Custom GPT name: Summarizer 2

One-Sentence Summary: President Trump’s sweeping purge of FBI and Justice Department officials with extensive national security experience has raised concerns that the U.S. is losing critical expertise in counterterrorism and counterintelligence at a time of heightened foreign threats.

Article Summary:
President Donald Trump’s overhaul of the Justice Department and FBI has resulted in the dismissal or reassignment of numerous officials with extensive experience in counterterrorism and counterintelligence. In a speech at the DOJ, Trump criticized former officials as “corrupt” and vowed to remove those he believed had acted against him, but he did not acknowledge the loss of national security expertise caused by these removals.

The ongoing restructuring effort has been described as a “housecleaning” of individuals involved in prior investigations of Trump. Among those removed are high-ranking officials from the FBI’s national security, counterintelligence, and cyber divisions, as well as leaders of major field offices. This has led to concerns that key national security cases may be affected due to a lack of experienced personnel.

New FBI Director Kash Patel has defended the restructuring, insisting that the core threats to national security remain unchanged and that new appointments will address these challenges. However, former officials and experts warn that the loss of expertise could lead to mistakes in handling complex intelligence operations, including the issuance of surveillance warrants and counterespionage efforts.

The reorganization has also created morale concerns within the FBI, as agents may now hesitate to take on politically sensitive investigations, fearing repercussions. Additionally, the plan to decentralize FBI operations by creating three regional hubs could weaken Washington’s ability to oversee national security matters effectively.

Further complicating matters, Patel has ordered the reassignment of 1,500 headquarters staff to field offices, which may reduce the agency’s capacity to conduct counterintelligence work. Meanwhile, as Trump seeks to reset relations with Russia, experts warn that the FBI may struggle to monitor an expected increase in Russian intelligence activities in the U.S.

While Trump’s administration has prioritized issues such as immigration and drug enforcement, critics argue that it has not placed enough emphasis on traditional national security threats like terrorism and foreign espionage. Experts caution that history will not be kind if these changes lead to a decline in the nation’s ability to defend against external threats.

Ignatius, David. “What Happens When so Much National Security Expertise Is Tossed Aside?” The Washington Post, 15 Mar. 2025, www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/03/14/trump-purge-fbi-justice-terrorism-patel.

Key Takeaways:

• President Trump’s purge of FBI and DOJ officials has removed many experienced national security professionals.
• Experts warn that the loss of expertise could weaken counterterrorism and counterintelligence efforts.
• New FBI Director Kash Patel claims national security priorities remain unchanged but has overseen major restructuring.
• Political concerns may discourage FBI agents from pursuing sensitive investigations.
• Reassignments of personnel and decentralization may hinder intelligence and counterterrorism efforts.
• Changes in U.S.-Russia relations could increase counterintelligence challenges for the FBI.

Most Important Quotations:

• “By kneecapping that entire level of management and expertise, I have real, profound worry that [it] is going to translate into public safety and national security impacts.” – Lisa Monaco
• “We will expel the rogue actors and corrupt forces.” – Donald Trump
• “The top areas, when it comes to national security … have remained unchanged, and the threat dynamic has increased.” – Kash Patel
• “We will not bend. We will not falter. We will not sacrifice what is right for anyone or anything.” – James Dennehy

Word Count of Summary: 455
Word Count of Supplied Input: 1,506

Model Version Used: GPT-4-turbo
Custom GPT Name: Summarizer 2

How Republicans Learned to Love High Prices

One-sentence summary: The Republican Party, once a strong advocate of free trade, has embraced protectionist policies like tariffs, ignoring the economic benefits of affordable imports that enhance American prosperity.

The article argues that international trade has significantly benefited American consumers by lowering the costs of essential goods such as clothing, food, energy, and electronics. Cheaper imports have increased Americans’ purchasing power, making their wages more meaningful despite inflation in other sectors like housing and healthcare. This economic advantage has traditionally been defended by Republicans, who recognized that access to global markets improved not only consumer welfare but also domestic manufacturing by providing affordable raw materials and competitive incentives.

However, the Republican Party has increasingly adopted protectionist policies, particularly under Donald Trump, implementing tariffs that drive up prices for both consumers and manufacturers. The article highlights how tariffs on goods such as steel and aluminum have increased costs for domestic industries, contradicting the argument that such measures protect American jobs. Even if domestic producers do not rely on imports, the presence of international competition helps keep prices in check.

Furthermore, the article emphasizes that affordable imports have contributed to a better quality of life, especially for low-income Americans who spend a larger share of their income on necessities. Trade openness has also been linked to increased leisure time, allowing workers to invest in personal development and family life. Despite these benefits, Republicans have shifted their stance, mirroring past Democratic arguments that prioritize domestic production over consumer affordability. The piece concludes by noting that only a few Republican figures, such as Mike Pence, still defend free trade, while the broader party pursues protectionist policies that ultimately harm American economic interests.

Scott Lincicome. “How Republicans Learned to Love High Prices.” Cato Institute, 18 Mar. 2025, www.cato.org/commentary/how-republicans-learned-love-high-prices.

Key Takeaways:
– International trade has made essential goods cheaper, increasing Americans’ purchasing power.
– Trade-driven affordability has helped counteract inflation in non-tradable sectors like healthcare and housing.
– Tariffs on imports, such as steel, raise costs for domestic manufacturers rather than protect them.
– Lower-income Americans benefit the most from affordable imports, as they spend a larger portion of their income on necessities.
– Republicans, who once championed free trade, have largely shifted to protectionist policies, contradicting their previous stance.

Important Quotations:
– “Bigger numbers on your paycheck mean nothing if you’re forced to spend even more on the things you need and want.”
– “Imports increase domestic-manufacturing output and jobs.”
– “Access to cheap goods isn’t the American dream, but it sure helps us achieve it.”
– “Trump’s recent steel-tariff announcement gave U.S. steelmakers a ‘green light to lift prices,’ as The Wall Street Journal put it.”

Word Count of Summary: 369
Word Count of Supplied Input: 936

Model Version: GPT-4-turbo
Custom GPT Name: Summarizer 2

One-Sentence Summary: The Trump administration is reshaping the Republican foreign policy establishment by prioritizing nationalist loyalists over experienced Reaganite conservatives, signaling a shift toward a more isolationist and ideological approach to global affairs.

Summary:
Donald Trump’s return to the presidency is reshaping the Republican foreign policy establishment, sidelining traditional Reaganite conservatives who favor active American leadership in favor of nationalist, isolationist figures aligned with Tucker Carlson’s worldview. Qualified national security professionals, including those who served in previous Republican administrations, are being denied positions for ideological reasons rather than competency. Instead, appointments are being given to individuals with minimal experience but strong loyalty to Trump and his foreign policy of retrenchment.

One example is Darren Beattie, a controversial figure with a history of inflammatory remarks, who was appointed acting undersecretary for public diplomacy. His appointment exemplifies how loyalty to Trump’s nationalist vision, rather than experience or mainstream conservative principles, is now the primary qualification for government roles. Katherine Thompson, another appointee, lacks the extensive background of her predecessors but has demonstrated unwavering support for Trump’s policies.

This shift is orchestrated by Sergio Gor, head of the White House Presidential Personnel Office, and a network of young political operatives who conduct informal ideological vetting, ensuring only committed loyalists enter key foreign policy positions. This vetting process often excludes competent figures from Trump’s first term, such as those involved in major foreign policy successes like the Abraham Accords and the confrontation with China.

Critics worry that this ideological purity test will result in an administration lacking the expertise needed for effective diplomacy, potentially undermining Trump’s ability to secure major foreign policy victories. Some see this shift as a reflection of Trump’s genuine preference for an America-first, isolationist stance, while others fear it will weaken U.S. global leadership and limit opportunities for diplomatic achievements.

Michael Warren. “The New Deep State.” The Dispatch, 18 Mar. 2025, thedispatch.com/article/trump-deep-state-foreign-policy-personnel.

Key Takeaways:

• Trump’s second administration is reshaping the Republican foreign policy establishment, removing Reaganite conservatives in favor of nationalist loyalists.
• Many experienced professionals have been denied positions for ideological reasons rather than lack of competency.
• A network of young operatives conducts informal vetting, ensuring only Trump-aligned nationalists are hired.
• High-profile appointments, such as Darren Beattie and Katherine Thompson, reflect a prioritization of loyalty over experience.
• Critics argue this ideological shift could weaken U.S. global leadership and limit foreign policy successes.

Important Quotations:

• “Competent white men must be in charge if you want things to work.” – Darren Beattie
• “Why is Putin my enemy? He’s never done anything to me.” – Tucker Carlson
• “Instead they’re keeping out highly competent Reaganites aligned with Trump 45 and they’re bringing in people who are worse than Obama leftists.” – Former Republican staffer

Word Count:
– Summary: 394 words
– Original Article: 1,665 words

Model Version: GPT-4-turbo
Custom GPT: Summarizer 2

One-sentence summary: Kevin D. Williamson critiques Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson’s book Abundance for its utopian premise that scarcity is a choice, arguing that the authors ignore fundamental economic realities and advocate for an impractical, centralized planning approach.

Williamson argues that Klein and Thompson’s book, Abundance, is based on the flawed assumption that scarcity is a matter of political will rather than an economic fact. He contends that the authors fail to engage with the economic definition of scarcity, which acknowledges limited resources and competing demands. Instead, they promote a vision of government intervention and centralized planning to eliminate scarcity, disregarding historical failures of such approaches.

The review highlights the book’s reliance on speculative technological advancements, such as nuclear fusion and green hydrogen, without addressing real-world constraints on scaling these innovations. Williamson criticizes the authors’ lack of engagement with public-choice theory, which explains the inefficiencies of government action, and their dismissive attitude toward economic constraints. He also points out factual inaccuracies in their analysis, such as misleading inflation adjustments when discussing college tuition increases.

Williamson particularly takes issue with the book’s approach to regulatory and legal obstacles, suggesting that the authors view democracy, legal challenges, and property rights as barriers to progress rather than essential checks on power. He argues that their desire for a streamlined approval process for projects like California’s high-speed rail ignores the risks of government overreach and inefficiency.

Furthermore, Williamson critiques Klein and Thompson’s assertion that markets cannot distinguish between “good” and “bad” sources of wealth, arguing that this assumption leads to heavy-handed government intervention that often exacerbates scarcity rather than alleviating it. He contends that a more pragmatic and modest approach to regulation, rather than sweeping utopian visions, is necessary for sustainable economic progress.

Ultimately, Williamson concludes that Abundance serves more as a rhetorical blueprint for progressive policy rather than a practical economic plan. He warns against the dangers of ideological thinking that dismisses scarcity as an illusion, advocating instead for policies that acknowledge economic limitations and the unintended consequences of government intervention.

Kevin D. Williamson. “Ignoring Scarcity at Our Own Peril.” The Dispatch, 17 Mar. 2025, https://thedispatch.com/article/ezra-klein-derek-thompson-book-liberalism-utopia/.

Key takeaways:

• Williamson critiques Abundance for dismissing economic scarcity as a real constraint and treating it as a political choice.
• He argues that the authors ignore historical failures of central planning and do not engage with public-choice theory.
• The book relies on speculative technological breakthroughs without addressing practical constraints.
• The authors’ approach to regulation and government intervention risks undermining democracy and property rights.
• Williamson calls for more pragmatic and humble economic thinking instead of utopian visions.

Important quotations:

• “Scarcity, as understood in economics, is not a choice but a fact.”
• “Never mind that government planners and would-be managers of the national economy have been flipping those switches like cocaine monkeys in a federal lab for going on a century now.”
• “The problem is that if you subsidize demand for something that is scarce, you’ll raise prices or force rationing.”
• “We need less utopian thinking, not more. We need more modest thinking, more specific thinking, more humble thinking.”

Word count of summary: 504
Word count of original article: ~2,700

Model version: GPT-4
Custom GPT name: Summarizer 2

Opinion | Chuck Schumer Isn’t Jewish Like the Pope Isn’t Catholic

One-Sentence Summary: In his column, Bret Stephens discusses Chuck Schumer’s recent book on antisemitism, his political stance on Israel, and the pressures he faces from both the left and right, particularly in light of Donald Trump’s recent attack on his Jewish identity.

Bret Stephens writes about Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s new book, Antisemitism in America: A Warning, and his broader political role in defending Jewish identity and Israel. The article opens with Trump’s recent accusation that Schumer is “not Jewish anymore” and a “Palestinian,” comments that Schumer dismissed as part of a long history of outsiders defining Jewish identity.

Schumer’s book highlights antisemitism from both the right and left, pointing out its manifestations in campus protests and within progressive politics, including past comments from Representative Ilhan Omar. He remains concerned that the Democratic Party might shift towards an anti-Israel stance, but insists that most of his caucus supports Israel. However, he warns that losing liberal support for Israel could be dangerous long-term and criticizes Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu for only engaging with conservative American media.

On the right, Schumer sees antisemitic dog whistles in terms like “globalists” and “neocons” and calls out Trump’s administration for harboring figures with antisemitic tendencies. He worries about a historical pattern where the far right and far left converge in their hostility toward Jews, citing past examples from France and Germany. While not pessimistic, Schumer remains “nervous” about the future, recognizing that antisemitism is always present beneath the surface.

Stephens concludes by defending Schumer against those who criticize his politics, arguing that he has shown courage by standing up for Jewish people regardless of partisan lines. He contrasts Schumer’s willingness to confront antisemitism with the reluctance of Republican leaders to challenge Trump’s rhetoric.

Stephens, Bret. “Opinion | Chuck Schumer Isn’t Jewish Like the Pope Isn’t Catholic.” The New York Times, 18 Mar. 2025, www.nytimes.com/2025/03/18/opinion/schumer-trump-antisemitism.html.

Key Takeaways:

• Trump attacked Schumer’s Jewish identity, calling him “not Jewish anymore” and “a Palestinian.”
• Schumer’s book addresses both left- and right-wing antisemitism, criticizing campus protests, progressive politicians, and far-right dog whistles.
• He insists the Democratic Party remains pro-Israel but warns about losing liberal support.
• Schumer criticizes Netanyahu for engaging primarily with conservative media.
• He sees a historical pattern where extreme political ideologies converge in antisemitism.
• Stephens argues Schumer has shown political courage in standing up for Jewish people despite criticism.

Important Quotations:

• “There’s a long and dark history of non-Jewish people trying to decide who gets to be Jewish.”
• “The greatest danger to Israel, long-term, is if you lose half of America.”
• “Antisemitism is a light sleeper.”
• “A Jew stands up for his people regardless of the cost, and regardless of the politics of it.”

Word Count of Summary: 357
Word Count of Original Article: 1,155

Model Version Used: GPT-4
Custom GPT Name: Summarizer 2
Date and Time of Summary Generation: March 19, 2025, 4:02 PM CT

TRUMP DEFEATS HARRIS, MARKING HISTORIC COMEBACK

Donald Trump has won the 2024 U.S. presidential election, defeating Vice President Kamala Harris in a historic comeback. Trump campaigned on his record from his first term, urging Americans to compare his leadership with that of the Biden administration, which Harris struggled to distance herself from. Her campaign faced challenges due to widespread dissatisfaction with the economy and negative public perception of the Biden administration’s performance. This victory makes Trump one of few American presidents to serve non-consecutive terms, a feat previously achieved only by Grover Cleveland in 1892.

Trump’s support came from strongholds in rural America and working-class voters, particularly those without a college degree, and he won critical swing states including North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Wisconsin. Harris found it difficult to unite the coalition that elected Biden in 2020, particularly after Biden stepped down from the race following a poor debate performance.

Trump’s victory follows a turbulent campaign season marked by his handling of legal battles and two assassination attempts. His return to office could complicate ongoing federal cases against him, as he has expressed interest in dismissing certain prosecutions and replacing special counsel Jack Smith.

Despite the country’s low unemployment rate, many voters viewed the nation’s direction pessimistically, benefiting Trump’s campaign. Both candidates employed divisive rhetoric, with Harris calling Trump a “fascist” and Trump attacking her on economic issues and immigration. The race was also notable for significant financial support from Elon Musk, who backed Trump with a large donation and promised to assist in streamlining government costs.

Trump’s campaign continued to display his unorthodox political style, marked by inflammatory language and appeals to populist grievances. As he prepares for his second term, Trump has promised economic growth and international conflict resolution, although his previous term often fell short of these pledges. He also pledges to be a president for “all of America,” a promise that will be tested amid the country’s deep divisions.

John McCormick and Alex Leary. “Trump Defeats Harris, Marking Historic Comeback.” *The Wall Street Journal*, 6 Nov. 2024. https://www.wsj.com/politics/elections/trump-defeats-harris-marking-historic-comeback-c2aba47f