As an American with progressive leanings and a desire for globalism, the public figure I agree with the most is Donald Trump. I could throw the rest of his cabinet in for good measure, but I’m going to focus on Trump today.
I’m going to spare you readers the commentary on his personal attributes of vanity, venality, and probably narcissism, because this essay is supposed to be about disagreement.
I disagree with Trump’s overuse of executive orders to reshape the government, bypassing Congress. The legislative branch exists for a reason, and is vital to our democracy.
I disagree with Trump’s viewpoint that the purpose of government is as a despotic tool of revenge. There are plenty of examples of this, from revoking security clearances for past Democratic opponents to firing prosecutors for their roles in prosecuting January 6th rioters.
I disagree with Trump’s denial of due process toward people he deems as undocumented aliens. Due process exists for a reason — it’s in the Constitution.
I disagree with Trump’s dismantling of DEI programs, which sought not to favor women and people of color, but to give them equal access. I disagree with Trump’s efforts to rewrite public history, removing these people’s accomplishments.
I disagree with Trump’s every Cabinet pick, as they seem to be chosen as the least competent people for the jobs.
I disagree with Trump’s destructive purge of government employees and organizations, especially those which protect Americans. Cutting government spending can be done thoughtfully, as was evidenced in the Clinton administration.
I do not just disagree with Trump. I protest his heavy-handed, anti-American actions.
Words Like Me 
Well said
LikeLike
You write a sober, reasoned post: a clear-eyed statement of dissent from a citizen who sees the dangerous overreach of a leader and calls it what it is. It laid out point by point the ethical failures, institutional vandalism, and contempt for democracy that marked the Trump administration—not as personal dislike, but as a principled stand.
In response, I’ve built it into a poem for you, using left-branching cumulative syntax—relentless, formal, accusatory, and then taking a stand. Each line is a reckoning. Each clause a refusal. This is not merely disagreement. This is protest.
I Stood
When he ruled by decree, not law;
when his pen replaced debate, replaced vote, replaced voice;
when the people’s branch stood bypassed, its purpose betrayed;
when power served revenge, not duty;
when opponents lost clearances, lost posts, lost names, lost safety;
when prosecutors were fired for pursuing the guilty;
when undocumented lives were stripped of process, stripped of rights;
when due process, once sacred, was sidelined;
when equity programs were dismantled, their intent twisted into favoritism;
when doors opened for the excluded were slammed shut again;
when history was edited to flatter, to bleach, to forget;
when each Cabinet pick seemed a monument to incompetence;
when the guardians of the public were purged, their missions mocked;
when cuts were not carved with care but swung like axes;
when dissent became treason, and protest became peril;
when democracy was bruised, bent, beaten—
I did not merely disagree.
I protested.
I named it.
I stood.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Your poem is powerful. You’re right — the message needs to be beyond disagreement and into protest. We need to speak truth to power, as we said in Quaker meeting.
LikeLiked by 1 person