Philip Bum: Trump is a liar, and he tells his people to lie

A Mother Turned Terrorist

On January 7, 2026, Renee Nicole Good, a 38-year-old mother of three, was killed by an ICE agent in Minneapolis. The circumstances of her death would quickly become one of the most sensational scandals of the Trump administration—not because of the shooting itself, but because of the way the DHS would attempt to justify it by brazenly lying about what happened. Even before Good’s identity was made public—even before her family was notified of her death—Tricia McLaughlin posted a version of events on social media that would turn out to be a web of lies. According to McLaughlin, Good allegedly “turned his vehicle into a weapon” and attempted to “run over our law enforcement officers in an attempt to kill them.” She described this alleged act as “domestic terrorism.” This is an extraordinarily serious accusation, one that instantly transforms a victim into a criminal, a mother into a terrorist.

The problem? Video evidence tells a completely different story. Several videos of the incident, filmed by witnesses and by the agents themselves, show a scene that bears no resemblance to McLaughlin’s description. Good is in her car, apparently calm. There is no indication that she is attempting to run anyone over. Instead, the videos show ICE agents surrounding her vehicle, smashing her windows, and eventually shooting her. The New York Times and the Washington Post published detailed analyses of these videos, concluding that there is “no evidence” that Good used her vehicle as a weapon. Yet McLaughlin stands by his account. Secretary Kristi Noem repeated the same accusations during a press conference on January 8. DHS as a whole clings to this narrative, despite video evidence that contradicts it. Why? Because admitting the truth would mean acknowledging that a federal agent killed an American citizen without valid justification.

Renee Good had three children. Three children who lost their mother. Three children who will grow up knowing that their mother was killed by a government agent, and that that same government then lied to tarnish her memory. They will grow up hearing federal officials label their mother a “domestic terrorist.” They will see her name dragged through the mud, her reputation destroyed—all to protect the career of an agent who pulled the trigger too quickly. And the worst part is that this lie will likely work on a segment of the population. There will always be people willing to believe the official version, no matter what evidence contradicts it. Because it’s easier to believe that the government is right than to accept that it might kill its own citizens and lie about it.

The Videos That Disprove Everything

Video analyses published by several major media outlets are damning for DHS. The New York Times published a meticulous reconstruction of the incident, using multiple camera angles to establish a precise timeline of events. This analysis shows that Good was in her parked vehicle when ICE agents approached. She was not trying to flee. She was not driving toward the agents. She was simply there, in her car, when the agents decided to forcibly remove her. The videos show the agents smashing the vehicle’s windows, attempting to open the doors, and finally firing through the windshield. At no point in these videos does Good appear to pose a threat to the agents’ lives. The Washington Post reached the same conclusions after its own analysis. The journalists examined every second of available video, looking for the slightest indication that Good might have used her vehicle as a weapon. They found nothing.

Faced with this evidence, DHS does not back down. On the contrary, the agency doubles down. Kristi Noem holds a press conference where she repeats McLaughlin’s accusations, even adding new dramatic details about the “threat” Good posed. DHS officials grant interviews to conservative media outlets, where they portray Good as a dangerous criminal who forced agents to use lethal force. But these claims don’t hold up against the videos. The footage is clear, unambiguous, and completely contradicts the DHS’s narrative. Yet the agency persists. Why? Because in the Trump universe, the truth is whatever you decide it is. If you repeat a lie loudly and often enough, if you have enough allied media outlets to amplify it, if you can count on an electoral base that refuses to believe the “mainstream media,” then you can create your own reality. And in that reality, Renee Good was a terrorist who deserved to die.

The Chicago Precedent: Marimar Martinez

The Renee Good case is not an isolated incident. It is part of a recurring pattern in which DHS labels people as “domestic terrorists” who later turn out to be ordinary citizens. In October 2025, in Chicago, DHS accused Marimar Martinez and Anthony Ruiz of attempting to “ambush” federal agents. According to the official account, Martinez was armed and was struck by “defensive fire” from the agents. Both were immediately labeled “domestic terrorists” by DHS. Tricia McLaughlin—yes, her again—relayed this version to the media. But as with Renee Good, this version would collapse in the face of the evidence. The Department of Justice eventually dropped all charges against Martinez and Ruiz. Why? Because the evidence shows that DHS is lying. Martinez, who legally owned a firearm, never took it out of her purse. Her attorney presented videos showing that it was the DHS agents who rammed her car, not the other way around.

The parallel with the Renee Good case is striking. In both cases, DHS immediately accused the victims of being terrorists. In both cases, these accusations were made before any serious investigation had even been conducted. In both cases, video evidence contradicts the official account. And in both cases, DHS refuses to admit that it lied. For Martinez, at least, the story ends relatively well: the charges are dropped, she is released, and she can try to rebuild her life. But for Renee Good, there is no happy ending. She is dead, and her reputation has been destroyed by government lies. Her children will grow up hearing their mother called a terrorist. Her family will have to fight for years to set the record straight. And in the meantime, the DHS officials who lied about her quietly continue their careers, without consequences, without remorse, without even acknowledging that they did anything wrong.

What sickens me about these stories is how easily the word “terrorist” is thrown around. Terrorist. It’s a heavy, loaded word that immediately conjures images of extreme violence and hateful ideology. It’s a word that instantly dehumanizes whoever it refers to. And the DHS uses it as a weapon to justify its actions, to turn victims into perpetrators, to short-circuit any serious investigation. Because who’s going to defend a terrorist? Who’s going to question the death of a terrorist? It’s a cynical and effective strategy, and it works because we’ve been conditioned since 9/11 to accept that anything goes in the fight against terrorism. Even lying. Even killing innocent people. Even destroying lives and families. Everything is justified in the name of national security.

The Surge in Arrests of Non-Criminals

Beyond individual lies about specific cases, DHS has also lied about the very nature of its immigration operations. Since the start of Trump’s second term in January 2025, the administration has tirelessly repeated the same message: ICE targets dangerous criminals, gang members, and people who pose a threat to public safety. This is a reassuring message, suggesting that immigration operations are targeted, proportionate, and justified. Vice President JD Vance reiterated this claim on January 9, 2026, during a television interview. But official statistics tell a completely different story. According to data compiled by TRAC (Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse), a research center at Syracuse University that analyzes government data, the number of people detained by ICE without a criminal conviction or pending charges has skyrocketed. On December 1, 2024, that number was 842. A year later, on November 30, 2025, it had reached 21,892. That is a 2,500%increase. Twenty-five times as many people with no criminal record were detained in just one year.

These figures are staggering. They demonstrate that, contrary to the official narrative, ICE does not primarily arrest criminals. It is mass-detaining people who have committed no crime, other than perhaps entering the United States illegally or overstaying their visas. These are workers, parents, and members of local communities. Some have lived in the United States for decades. Many have children who are U.S. citizens. But to ICE under Trump, that doesn’t matter. The goal is not to target dangerous criminals. The goal is to meet quotas, maximize the number of arrests and deportations, and create a climate of fear in immigrant communities. And to justify this approach, DHS lies. It lies about who it arrests. It lies about why it arrests them. It lies about the threats they pose. And when researchers or journalists present data that contradicts these lies, DHS attacks them, discredits them, or ignores them.

Only 5% Are Violent Criminals

The analysis by David Bier of the Cato Institute—the very one that Tricia McLaughlin tried to discredit—reveals another troubling figure: only 5% of those detained by ICE have convictions for violent crimes. Five percent. That means 95% of ICE detainees have not been convicted of violent crimes. The majority—about 73%—have no criminal convictions at all. These figures come directly from DHS data, which makes McLaughlin’s attempt to discredit them even more absurd. DHS produces these statistics, makes them public (likely because it is required to do so by law), and then attacks those who analyze and publish them when the results do not align with the official narrative. This is a form of Orwellian doublethink: the data both exists and does not exist at the same time, depending on what suits the government.

These statistics raise fundamental questions about ICE’s priorities. If the agency were truly targeting dangerous criminals, as it claims, one would expect an overwhelming majority of detainees to have convictions for serious crimes. Instead, we find that the vast majority of those arrested and detained have no criminal record. This suggests that ICE operates on a “sweep-and-grab” basis rather than through precise targeting. Agents arrest whoever they can, wherever they can, without paying particular attention to the criminal profiles of those apprehended. This approach maximizes arrest numbers, allowing the Trump administration to boast of its “success” in the fight against illegal immigration. But it also causes immense human suffering, destroys families, and terrorizes entire communities. And all of this is justified by lies about who is actually being arrested and why.

These numbers haunt me. 21,892 people with no criminal record detained. 21,892 lives turned upside down. 21,892 families torn apart. And for what? To satisfy Trump’s obsession with immigration? To allow politicians to boast about being “tough” on crime? To feed the racist fantasies of a segment of the electorate that sees every immigrant as a potential criminal? I can’t help but think of all these people, locked up in detention centers, separated from their children, living in constant fear of being deported to countries they left years—sometimes decades—ago. And all the while, the government lies about them, portrays them as threats, and dehumanizes them to justify their treatment. It’s outrageous.

The Kilmar Abrego Garcia Case

Kristi Noem, as Secretary of DHS, bears ultimate responsibility for the culture of lies that plagues her department. And she has not hesitated to lie personally to defend her agency’s actions. One of the most egregious examples involves Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident whom DHS deported to El Salvador in direct violation of a court order. To justify this illegal deportation, Noem described Garcia as “an MS-13 gang member, a human trafficker, a serial domestic abuser, and a child predator.” This is an extraordinarily serious list of accusations, which paints Garcia as a monster and retroactively justifies his deportation. The problem? Each of these accusations is either false or grossly exaggerated. PolitiFact, a respected fact-checking website, examined Noem’s claims in detail and concluded that they do not hold up to factual scrutiny.

Garcia was not a confirmed member of MS-13. He had not been convicted of human trafficking. The domestic assault charges were disputed and had not resulted in convictions. And the accusation of child predation was simply false. But Noem made these statements publicly, knowing they would be widely reported by the media, knowing they would shape the public’s perception of Garcia, and likely knowing they were false or, at best, unproven. Why? Because DHS needed to justify a deportation that violated a court order. Because admitting that Garcia was simply an undocumented immigrant with no serious criminal record would have raised embarrassing questions about why DHS had chosen to defy a federal judge in order to deport him. So Noem lied. She turned an ordinary man into a monster, and she did so with the authority and credibility of her position as Secretary of DHS.

The Press Conference on Renee Good

Kristi Noem’s performance at the January 8, 2026, press conference on the Renee Good case will be remembered as an iconic moment in the Trump administration’s culture of lies. In front of the cameras, with all the authority of her office, Noem repeated McLaughlin’s accusations against Good. She claimed that Good had used her vehicle as a weapon, that she had attempted to kill federal agents, and that she posed a domestic terrorism threat. Noem made these statements even as videos of the incident were already circulating on social media—videos that clearly contradicted the DHS narrative. She made these statements even as journalists had already begun analyzing those videos and publishing articles questioning the official account. She knew, or should have known, that what she was saying was false. But she said it anyway.

This press conference reveals something fundamental about Noem and the Trump administration in general: the truth is secondary to the political message. It doesn’t matter what actually happened. What matters is controlling the narrative, shaping public perception, and shielding federal agents from any accountability. And if that requires lying publicly, smearing the reputation of a dead woman, and further traumatizing her family, so be it. That’s the price to pay for maintaining the image of an agency that never makes mistakes, never kills innocents, and is always on the right side of history. Noem chose to sacrifice the truth and Renee Good’s dignity on the altar of political loyalty. And she did so without hesitation, without apparent remorse, with the confidence of someone who knows there will be no consequences.

Watching Noem lie with such confidence made me sick to my stomach. Not because I’m surprised that a politician would lie—they all do, to varying degrees. But because she was lying about a woman’s death. About the circumstances of her death. About who she was. And she was doing it with the weight and authority of the federal government behind her. How many people will believe her version of events? How many people will think that Renee Good was really a terrorist who deserved to die? How many people will never see the videos that prove otherwise? That’s the true power of institutional lies. It’s not just that they deceive people. It’s that they create an alternative reality that becomes true for those who choose to believe it.

Sara Ellis’s Devastating Ruling

In November 2025, U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis of the Northern District of Illinois issued a 233-page ruling that constitutes one of the harshest condemnations ever handed down by a federal court against DHS. The ruling concerned a complaint alleging excessive use of force by federal agents during immigration operations in Chicago. But beyond the specific issues of excessive force, Judge Ellis’s ruling directly challenges the credibility of DHS and its representatives. In a section titled simply “Credibility,” Ellis writes: “After reviewing all the evidence submitted to the court and hearing the testimony gathered at the preliminary hearing, during depositions, and in other court proceedings, the court concludes that the defendants’ evidence is simply not credible.” This is an extraordinary statement. A federal judge is essentially asserting that the government systematically lies in court.

Ellis does not stop there. She meticulously documents the inconsistencies, contradictions, and outright lies in the testimony and documents presented by DHS. She notes that “although the defendants may argue that the court is identifying only minor inconsistencies, each minor inconsistency adds up, and at a certain point, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to believe almost anything the defendants assert.” In other words, DHS has lied so much—about so many different things—that the court can no longer give it the benefit of the doubt on anything. This is a total loss of institutional credibility. And this isn’t coming from a partisan political commentator. It’s coming from a federal judge, in an official ruling, after reviewing hundreds of pages of evidence and listening to hours of testimony. DHS lied in court, time and time again, until the court had no choice but to systematically reject its claims.

Greg Bovino, the Lying Chief

Judge Ellis pays particular attention to Greg Bovino, the Border Patrol chief, whom she explicitly describes as “not credible.” Bovino was present during numerous immigration operations in Chicago and testified in the trial. His testimony, according to Ellis, is riddled with lies and contradictions. The most shocking part? Ellis notes that “Bovino admitted during his deposition that he had lied on multiple occasions” regarding an incident in which he fired tear gas at protesters. Read that sentence again. The Border Patrol chief admitted to lying. Not just once. Several times. And he admitted it under oath, during a court deposition. This is an extraordinary admission, one that would normally entail serious consequences—potentially even prosecution for perjury. But Bovino retains his position. He continues to lead the Border Patrol. He continues to oversee immigration operations across the country.

Bovino’s case perfectly illustrates the systemic problem within DHS. It’s not just that a few officials lie occasionally. It’s that lying has become an accepted—even encouraged—practice. Bovino can admit to lying under oath and keep his job because, in the Trump universe, loyalty is more important than honesty. As long as you defend the administration, as long as you support the official narrative, as long as you attack the president’s enemies, you can lie as much as you want. The normal consequences of lying—loss of credibility, professional sanctions, legal action—no longer apply. Judge Ellis’s ruling documents this reality with clinical precision. She shows how DHS systematically lied about its operations in Chicago, how its agents used excessive force and then lied about it, how its officials presented false evidence in court, and how all of this was done with the tacit—if not explicit—approval of the agency’s leadership.

When a federal judge writes 233 pages to document the lies of a government agency, we should all stop and take notice. This is not normal. This is not acceptable. This is not “just politics.” This is a crisis of democratic legitimacy. How can we trust a judicial system where the government systematically lies in court? How can we believe that justice will be served when those who are supposed to enforce the law lie about their own actions? And above all, how can we accept that an official who admits to lying under oath keeps his job and continues to wield considerable power over the lives of thousands of people? These questions should keep us awake at night.

Creating an Alternative Reality

Trump and his administration’s strategy isn’t simply to lie occasionally to get out of awkward situations. It’s a much more sophisticated and dangerous approach: creating a completely alternative reality where objective facts no longer matter. This strategy rests on several pillars. First, lying repeatedly and consistently. If you say the same thing over and over again—even if it’s false—a significant portion of the population will eventually believe it. Second, systematically attacking those who challenge your lies. Journalists are labeled “enemies of the people.” Fact-checkers are accused of partisanship. Researchers who publish inconvenient data are discredited. Third, create an alternative media ecosystem that amplifies your lies without questioning them. Fox News, Newsmax, and a myriad of conservative websites faithfully relay the official narrative, no matter how much it is contradicted by the facts.

This strategy works because it exploits fundamental weaknesses in human psychology and the modern media landscape. People tend to believe what confirms their existing biases. If you’re already convinced that immigration is a major problem, you’ll be more inclined to believe that ICE is arresting dangerous criminals, even if the data shows otherwise. If you trust Trump, you’ll be more inclined to believe his version of events, even when it’s contradicted by videos. And in a fragmented media landscape where everyone can choose their own news sources, it’s easy to live in a bubble where your beliefs are never challenged. Trump and his administration have understood this better than anyone. They aren’t trying to convince everyone. They’re trying to keep their base in an alternate reality where they’re always right, their enemies are always wrong, and objective facts are just a matter of opinion.

The Erosion of Institutional Trust

The most serious consequence of this strategy of repeated lies is the erosion of trust in democratic institutions. When the president lies on a daily basis, when his officials lie to defend him, and when government agencies lie about their own actions, public trust collapses. And it’s not just trust in the Trump administration that is affected. It is trust in government in general, in the media, in experts, and in any source of authority or information. This erosion of trust has profound and lasting consequences. It makes it more difficult to solve complex problems that require collective action. How can we mobilize the public to address a public health crisis if no one trusts health authorities? How can we have an informed democratic debate on immigration policies if no one agrees on the basic facts?

In his analysis, Philip Bump points out that this erosion of trust is precisely what Trump and his allies are seeking. If people no longer trust traditional institutions, they become more dependent on authoritarian figures who claim to be the only ones telling the truth. It’s a vicious cycle: the government lies, trust erodes, people turn to alternative sources of information that are often even less reliable, which makes it even easier for the government to lie with impunity. And meanwhile, society’s ability to distinguish truth from falsehood, to have debates based on shared facts, and to make informed collective decisions is gradually deteriorating. We are heading toward a world where everyone has their own truth, where objective facts no longer exist, where power belongs to those who can lie most effectively. It’s terrifying.

I remember a time, not so long ago, when politicians caught red-handed in a lie had to at least pretend to be embarrassed. They would offer apologies, even if they weren’t sincere. They would try to minimize the damage. They acknowledged, at least implicitly, that lying was wrong. Those days are gone. Now, when it’s proven that a Trump administration official has lied, the typical reaction is either silence or an attack on those who exposed the lie. There is no longer any shame. No longer any recognition that the truth has value. And that, perhaps, is the most frightening thing of all. Because if lying no longer has consequences, if the truth no longer matters, then on what can we build a democratic society?

The Disinformation Ecosystem

The lies spread by Trump and his administration could not be as effective without a media ecosystem ready to amplify them without question. Fox News, in particular, plays a central role in this disinformation machine. When Tricia McLaughlin lies about ICE arrests, Fox News reports her statements as established facts. When Kristi Noem calls Renee Good a terrorist, Fox News presents this version without mentioning the videos that contradict it. When Trump claims that ICE targets only dangerous criminals, Fox News illustrates this claim with dramatic footage of raids and arrests, without ever mentioning that the majority of those arrested have no criminal record. This isn’t journalism. It’s propaganda. And it’s extremely effective, because Fox News reaches millions of viewers who never consult other news sources.

But Fox News is only the most visible part of a much broader ecosystem. There’s Newsmax, One America News Network, and dozens of conservative websites that operate according to the same logic: uncritically relaying the Trump administration’s statements, attacking mainstream media outlets that contradict them, and creating an alternative narrative in which Trump and his allies are always the heroes and their opponents are always the villains. This ecosystem is reinforced by social media, where algorithms favor engaging content (often the most outrageous and false) and where users can easily block or ignore any information that contradicts their beliefs. The result is a complete fragmentation of the American information landscape. There are no longer shared facts, no longer a common reality. There is the version of events you see on CNN or in The New York Times, and there is the version you see on Fox News or on sites like Breitbart. And these two versions can be completely contradictory.

The Role of Social Media

Social media has transformed the way disinformation spreads. Before the social media era, political lies were limited by the fact that they had to pass through media gatekeepers who, while not perfect, at least applied some level of fact-checking. Now, Trump can tweet (or post on Truth Social) a lie that will instantly reach millions of people, without any filter, without any fact-checking. And even if that lie is quickly debunked by fact-checkers, the debunking will reach only a fraction of the people who saw the original lie. Social media algorithms exacerbate the problem by creating echo chambers where users see only content that confirms their existing beliefs. If you follow pro-Trump accounts, your news feed will be filled with content that portrays Trump in a favorable light and his opponents in an unfavorable one. You’ll never see the critical analyses, fact-checks, or evidence that contradicts the official narrative.

This dynamic creates a situation where millions of Americans live in completely different informational realities. To some, Renee Good was a terrorist who attacked federal agents and was killed in self-defense. For others, she was an innocent mother murdered by overzealous agents. And these two groups don’t even share the same basic facts about what happened. How can we have a democratic debate under these conditions? How can we find common ground when we can’t even agree on reality? Social media platforms have made some efforts to combat misinformation, notably by adding warnings to misleading content or by removing fake accounts. But these efforts are woefully inadequate given the scale of the problem. And they are constantly undermined by accusations of censorship and partisanship, often orchestrated by the very people who benefit most from misinformation.

I spend a lot of time on social media—probably too much. And what strikes me most is just how much people live in parallel universes. I see posts about the Renee Good case that portray her as an innocent martyr, and others that call her a dangerous criminal. And the comments under these posts show that people are absolutely convinced of their own version of events, to the point where any evidence to the contrary is dismissed as propaganda. It’s exhausting. It’s depressing. And it scares me for the future of our collective ability to solve problems. Because if we can’t even agree on what happened, how can we agree on what to do?

Torn Families

Behind every statistic, behind every lie from DHS, there are human lives destroyed. The 21,892 people with no criminal record detained by ICE are not just numbers on a spreadsheet. They are fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, workers and community members. Many have children who are U.S. citizens and who suddenly find themselves without a parent. Some are detained for months, even years, often in deplorable conditions, without knowing if they will ever see their families again. The psychological trauma caused by these separations is immense and long-lasting. Children who witness their parents being arrested by federal agents develop anxiety disorders, behavioral problems, and academic difficulties. Spouses left behind must suddenly shoulder all financial and parenting responsibilities alone, often without the necessary resources. Entire communities live in constant fear that the next raid could come knocking on their door.

And all of this is justified by lies. DHS claims to target dangerous criminals, when in reality it carries out mass arrests of people whose only “crime” is having entered the United States illegally or having overstayed their visas. DHS claims that its operations are targeted and proportionate, when in reality they often resemble indiscriminate raids in which agents arrest anyone who cannot immediately prove their legal status. DHS claims it never arrests U.S. citizens, yet hundreds of documented cases prove otherwise. These lies are not just political abstractions. They have concrete and devastating consequences on the lives of thousands of people. They allow the government to continue cruel and ineffective policies without being held accountable. They prevent the public from understanding the true nature and scale of what is happening. And they make reform nearly impossible—for how can one reform a system when those who run it systematically lie about how it operates?

The Case of the 170 U.S. Citizens

ProPublica’s investigation, documenting more than 170 U.S. citizens arrested and detained by ICE, reveals one of the most disturbing consequences of the culture of deception at DHS. These individuals, who had a constitutional right not to be detained for immigration reasons, were treated as undocumented immigrants. Some spent days, weeks, or even months in detention before they could prove their citizenship. During that time, they were separated from their families, lost their jobs, and suffered profound psychological trauma. And all of this because ICE agents, in their zeal to meet arrest quotas, do not take the time to properly verify the citizenship status of the people they apprehend. Or worse, because they refuse to believe the proof of citizenship that detainees present to them.

The case of Dulce Consuelo Diaz Morales, who was detained for 25 days despite her status as a U.S. citizen, is not an anomaly. It is one example among hundreds of a systemic problem. And throughout all this time, Tricia McLaughlin has publicly claimed that ICE never detains U.S. citizens. This lie is not just embarrassing for DHS. It is dangerous, because it prevents the public from understanding the scale of the problem and demanding reforms. If people believe that ICE never detains U.S. citizens, why would they worry about constitutional protections? Why would they demand more oversight and accountability? McLaughlin’s lie serves to shield ICE from criticism and reform, at the expense of the fundamental rights of hundreds of U.S. citizens. It is a betrayal of public trust and a violation of the most basic democratic principles.

Imagine being an American citizen and finding yourself in ICE detention. You shout that you’re an American, you show your documents, you beg them to verify your status. And no one listens to you. You’re treated like a criminal, locked up with dozens of other people in often inhumane conditions, with no idea when or if you’ll be released. Your children wonder where you are. Your employer replaces you. Your life falls apart. And meanwhile, the government spokesperson claims on television that this kind of thing never happens. How can anyone not be outraged by this? How can anyone accept that a government treats its own citizens this way and lies about it?

No Consequences for Liars

Perhaps the most shocking aspect of this whole story is the complete lack of consequences for those who lie. Tricia McLaughlin has been caught lying at least seven times—and likely many more. She still has her job. Kristi Noem lied about Kilmar Abrego Garcia, about Renee Good, and on countless other topics. She still has her job. Greg Bovino admitted under oath to having lied on multiple occasions. He retains his position. In a functioning democratic system, lying publicly—especially on matters as serious as the life and death of citizens—should result in severe consequences. Forced resignation, at the very least. Legal action in the most serious cases. But in the Trump administration, none of that happens. On the contrary, those who lie most effectively to defend the president and his policies are rewarded with loyalty and protection.

This impunity sends a clear message to all government officials: you can lie with impunity as long as you are loyal to Trump. This creates a race to the bottom where the most dishonest officials thrive while those who try to maintain a modicum of integrity are marginalized or pushed out. This is exactly the opposite of what a democratic system should encourage. And the consequences of this dynamic extend far beyond the Trump administration. Even after Trump leaves office, this culture of lying without consequences will persist. Future government officials will have learned that they can lie with impunity. Future presidents will know that they can appoint dishonest loyalists without fear of repercussions. And the American public will become even more cynical and disengaged, convinced that all politicians lie anyway and that there’s nothing that can be done about it.

Congress, a Passive Spectator

The U.S. Congress, which is supposed to serve as a check on the executive branch, has largely failed to hold the Trump administration accountable for its lies. Republicans, who control the House of Representatives, have shown little interest in investigating the DHS’s false statements or holding its officials accountable. On the contrary, many Republican members of Congress are amplifying the same lies, repeating the DHS’s claims about dangerous criminals and domestic terrorists without questioning them. The Democrats, although they have held a few hearings and published a few critical reports, have failed to generate enough political pressure to force changes. This is partly because they are in the minority in the House, and partly because the public is so divided that any criticism of the Trump administration is immediately dismissed as partisan by a large portion of the electorate.

This paralysis in Congress is symptomatic of a broader problem of democratic dysfunction. The accountability mechanisms that were supposed to prevent abuses of power no longer work. Congress is either unable or unwilling to exercise its oversight role. The media is so fragmented and polarized that its exposés no longer have a uniform impact on public opinion. The courts—though Judge Ellis has done a remarkable job—are limited in their ability to force systemic changes. And the public is so divided and disillusioned that it is difficult to mobilize sufficient popular pressure to force reforms. The result is a situation where the Trump administration can lie with near impunity, knowing there will be no significant political or legal consequences. This is a recipe for authoritarianism, where the executive branch is no longer constrained by democratic norms or institutions of accountability.

Impunity terrifies me more than the lies themselves. Because lies, however serious they may be, could be corrected if the system were working. If liars were punished, if those responsible were held accountable, if Congress did its job, then there would be hope. But when liars thrive, when they are rewarded for their dishonesty, when there are no consequences for betraying the public trust, then the system itself is broken. And I don’t know how to fix that. I don’t know how to restore democratic accountability when a significant portion of the population doesn’t want its leaders to be held accountable, as long as they “win” against their political enemies.

The Future of Truth in Politics

Philip Bump’s analysis raises a fundamental question: Where do we go from here? If systematic lying becomes the norm in politics, if government officials can lie without consequence, if a significant portion of the population refuses to believe objective facts, what is the future of American democracy? Democracies rest on a number of fundamental assumptions. One is that citizens can make informed decisions based on factual information. Another is that elected officials are held accountable for their actions and statements. A third is that there is a shared set of facts upon which democratic debate can be built. All of these assumptions are currently being called into question. And if we do not find a way to restore them, the future of American democracy looks bleak.

Some observers are optimistic, arguing that the truth always comes out in the end, that lies are eventually exposed, and that democratic systems have the capacity for resilience and self-correction. They point to historical examples where corrupt or dishonest administrations were ultimately held accountable, where scandals led to reforms, and where the public eventually rejected the politicians who had deceived them. But others are far more pessimistic. They note that current conditions are unprecedented: never before have we had such a fragmented media landscape, social media platforms so powerful at spreading disinformation, or a president so determined to undermine democratic norms. They fear that we have entered a new era where objective truth no longer matters, where everyone can choose their own reality, and where power belongs to those who can lie most effectively.

The Midterm Elections as a Test

The 2026 midterm elections will be a crucial test to determine whether the Trump administration’s lies have political consequences. If Republicans maintain or expand their control of Congress despite revelations about the DHS’s lies, it will send a clear signal that lying carries no political cost. This will encourage even more lies, even more abuses, and even more contempt for the truth and democratic accountability. But if Democrats manage to regain control of the House or the Senate, it could pave the way for more in-depth investigations, more aggressive hearings, and potentially legislative reforms to strengthen the accountability of federal agencies. It could also send a message to future government officials that lying comes at a political cost, and that betraying the public’s trust can lead to electoral defeat.

But even if the Democrats win in 2026, the damage caused by years of systematic lies will not be easily repaired. Trust in institutions takes decades to build and can be destroyed in just a few years. The deep divisions in American society, exacerbated by disinformation and polarization, will not disappear overnight. And the lessons that future politicians will have learned from the Trump era—that lying can work, that tribal loyalty is more important than the truth, that democratic norms can be violated without consequence—will persist long after Trump has left the political stage. We are at a pivotal moment in American history. The choices we make now, as a society, about how we respond to this crisis of truth and accountability will determine the kind of democracy we will have in the decades to come. Or whether we will have a democracy at all.

I want to be optimistic. I want to believe that the truth will ultimately prevail, that the lies will be exposed, that American democracy has enough resilience to survive this ordeal. But honestly, I don’t know. What I see frightens me. I see an administration that lies shamelessly. I see millions of people who believe these lies or who simply don’t care. I see democratic institutions that seem powerless to stop this downward spiral. And I wonder if we’ve already crossed a point of no return, if we’re already in a post-truth world from which there’s no turning back. I hope I’m wrong. But hope isn’t enough. Action is needed. People need to wake up, demand better from their leaders, and refuse to accept lies as normal. Otherwise, we’re doomed.

A Democratic System in Jeopardy

Philip Bump’s analysis of the DHS and the Trump administration is not just partisan political criticism. It is a warning about the state of American democracy. When a respected journalist from a major media outlet has to publicly declare that a major federal agency can no longer be trusted, it is a sign that something fundamental is broken. When federal judges write 233-page rulings documenting the government’s systematic lies, it is a sign that the normal mechanisms of accountability are no longer working. When government officials can lie publicly, be caught red-handed, and carry on without consequence, it is a sign that we have entered dangerous territory. The cost of lying is not just the loss of credibility for an administration or an agency. It is the erosion of trust in all democratic institutions. It is the fragmentation of society into tribes that no longer even share a common reality. It is the normalization of authoritarianism and contempt for the truth.

We are at a crossroads where we must choose. Either we accept this new normal—where lying is an acceptable political strategy, where government officials can betray the public’s trust without consequence, and where the truth is merely a matter of opinion—or we resist. We demand better. We hold our leaders accountable. We refuse to accept lies, even when they come from people we support politically. We rebuild the democratic norms that have been destroyed. It won’t be easy. It will require a sustained collective effort on the part of citizens, the media, institutions, and political leaders of all stripes. But it is necessary. Because the alternative—a world where truth no longer matters, where power belongs to those who lie best, where democratic institutions are just empty facades—is unacceptable. Philip Bump has given us a clear diagnosis of the problem. Now it’s up to us to find the cure.

Trump’s Legacy

Whatever the outcome of the upcoming elections, Trump’s legacy regarding truth and lies will linger for a long time. He has demonstrated that a politician can lie blatantly and repeatedly without losing the support of his electoral base. He has shown that one can attack the media, fact-checkers, and any independent source of information and still come out ahead politically. He has proven that one can install dishonest loyalists at the head of federal agencies and protect them even when their lies are exposed. These lessons will not be forgotten by future politicians. We will likely see more and more candidates and elected officials adopt Trump’s tactics—lying shamelessly, attacking those who contradict them, and creating their own alternative realities. And unless we find a way to make these tactics politically costly, they will become the new norm in American politics.

But Trump’s legacy has not yet been fully written. We still have the opportunity to reject this approach, to restore democratic norms, and to rebuild trust in our institutions. This will require courage, perseverance, and a commitment to the truth—even when it is uncomfortable or politically disadvantageous. It will require the media to continue doing their job of fact-checking, even in the face of attacks and accusations of partisanship. It will require citizens to demand better from their leaders, to refuse to accept lies, and to punish at the ballot box those who betray their trust. And it will require that democratic institutions—Congress, the courts, and oversight agencies—find ways to hold government officials accountable, even in a polarized political environment. This is an immense challenge. But it is a challenge we must meet if we are to preserve American democracy for future generations.

As I write these words, I feel a mixture of outrage, sadness, and fierce determination. Outrage at the scale of the lies, at the cynicism of those who spread them, and at the impunity they enjoy. Sadness for the victims of these lies—Renee Good and her children, the 170 American citizens wrongfully detained, the thousands of families torn apart by policies justified by falsehoods. But also determination. Determination not to accept this situation as normal. Determination to keep seeking the truth, to share it, to defend it. Determination to believe that we can do better, that we must do better. Because if we abandon the truth, if we accept that lying is just another political strategy, then we abandon everything that makes democracy possible. And I refuse to give up. Not now. Not ever.