The State of Our So-Called Union — An Opinion Piece
By: Gabrielle Bernabe
Now that some time has passed, it is a good time to go analyze the State of the Union. Please keep in mind that this is an opinion piece, and although some may not agree, in this day and age, constructive debate is more useful than destructive arguments.
This state of the union is memorable in more ways than one, as this year marks the 250th anniversary of America becoming what many know and love today.
Speaking with a friend about the anniversary, he said it is unbelievable that America is this old without much progress, and, sadly, he is correct. In a year when people are supposed to have joy, foster community, and be proud of their culture, there has been nothing but hate and division building for years.
While it is easy to place the blame for hate and division on the current administration, presidential administrations reflect what voters choose in a representative government. Whether the current voting system accurately reflects voting patterns is a valid discussion, but for the sake of this article, it is the system in place. In this cas, that system has resulted in a Trump administration.
Turning to the State of the Union itself, the delayed start did not inspire confidence. When the president said the “nation is back,” the immediate question was: from what? By watching the broadcast and reviewing other coverage, one can analyze what appear to be largely inaccurate claims in the speech.
The State of the Union is intended to update the nation in its condition and provide a moment for presidential accountability. Instead, Trump takes a defensive and, at times, inaccurate approach.
By claiming he “inherited a nation in crisis” and ushered a “turnaround of the ages,” Trump argues that the current economy is stronger than under the previous administration. Statistically, that claim is disputed. Regardless of party lines, there must be accountability grounded in facts. At the start of the Biden administration, leaders inherited an economy weakened by the pandemic that required rebuilding to support job growth and recovery.
As if disputed claims were not enough, the level of professionalism typically associated with the White House appeared diminished. Throughout the speech, there were interruptions from both sides, shouting, visible disengagement, and reports of inappropriate behavior. This is not the standard of conduct expected from elected representatives, regardless of political beliefs.
The speech then shifts into what could be described as an award ceremony—highlighting positive moments without addressing the issues many Americans want discussed. At that point, the speech offered little substance for viewers seeking meaningful updates.
Overall, the speech serves as a reminder of why civic engagement matters. Voting is important, but so is involvement at the local level, where government begins. It is easy to place blame on the president or Congress; however, accountability also starts within communities. Local decisions shape state policy, and state policy influences federal legislation. Civic duty extends beyond voting—it requires political awareness and active participation to influence outcomes before they reach the national level.
(https://www.epi.org/blog/president-elect-trump-is-inheriting-a-historically-strong-economy/