Do We Love Our Neighbors?

Published: April 12, 2026

Political campaigns often appeal to our values, but policy choices reveal whether leaders truly love their neighbors. In his second term, President Donald Trump and his allies have pursued policies that critics argue poison air and water, normalize unlawful military force, destabilize the global economy, and mislead the public about clean energy.

The central question is not rhetorical. It is moral and civic at the same time: do these choices reflect care for the people who must live with their consequences, or contempt for the communities asked to bear the cost?

Poisoning air and water

The Environmental Protection Agency exists to protect public health. Yet under Trump it initiated roughly 66 actions to weaken environmental rules, while former EPA environmental justice director Matthew Tejada described the agenda as a "war on all fronts" against Americans' health.

The EPA also offered two-year exemptions from toxic air-pollution standards to more than one-third of domestic coal plants and chemical facilities, effectively inviting polluters to request a pass by email. The human consequences are not abstract. Communities living near those sites, especially Black, Latino, and rural communities, face higher exposure to pollutants linked to asthma, autism, ADHD, and cancer.

Dr. Gaurab Basu of Harvard Medical School called the rollback of drinking-water limits for PFAS "unconscionable." Meanwhile, enforcement fell sharply: civil lawsuits dropped 76% compared with early Biden administration levels, and settlements declined from 186 in 2013 to 40 in 2025.

When regulators retreat from serious cases against polluters, the signal is clear: public health becomes negotiable, and corporate convenience does not.

Unofficial wars and unchecked power

On January 3, 2020, a U.S. drone strike killed Iranian general Qassem Soleimani. A United Nations special rapporteur concluded the strike violated international law and lacked evidence of an imminent threat. Whatever one thinks of Soleimani, that conclusion raises a core democratic question: how much unchecked force should any president be allowed to wield?

Congress later attempted to end U.S. involvement in the Saudi-led war in Yemen, but Trump vetoed the resolution and the Senate failed to override him. Senator Bernie Sanders noted the vote marked the first use of the War Powers Act in 45 years.

If bipartisan opposition is still not enough to stop a conflict, then the public is left with a presidency that can continue military action despite explicit resistance from the representatives of the people.

Destabilized global economy

On April 2, 2025, Trump announced sweeping tariffs: 10% on all imports and as much as 50% on select countries. Within days, global markets lost an estimated $2.5 trillion. Economists warned about rising recession risk, broken supply chains, and higher consumer prices.

At the same time, tax policy changes were structured so that more than 70% of the benefits would flow to the top 20% of households. The top 1% was projected to receive an average tax cut of roughly $66,000, while the gains for the bottom 80% were expected to be offset by tariff-driven price increases.

That is not shared sacrifice. It is a transfer upward disguised as populism, with working families left paying more at the register.

Fear and misinformation about wind energy

Trump has repeatedly claimed that wind turbines cause cancer and slash nearby property values by 65% to 75%. Available research does not support either claim. Fact-checkers and published studies found no link between turbine noise and cancer, and no statistically significant evidence of broad property-value collapse near wind projects.

Yet the policy direction has favored expanded fossil fuel development, including rhetoric about a "national energy emergency," even as renewable energy is frequently cheaper than fossil fuel generation.

Fear can be politically useful, but it is expensive. Delaying clean-energy adoption increases pollution, worsens climate risk, and leaves households and infrastructure tied more tightly to volatile fuel markets.

What love of neighbor requires

Across these issues, a consistent pattern emerges:

• Environmental deregulation that shifts health risk onto ordinary communities
• Military action with weak oversight and dubious legal grounding
• Economic policy that rewards the wealthy while raising costs for everyone else
• Public misinformation that obscures workable clean-energy solutions

Those patterns invite a few necessary questions:

• Who benefits when regulations are weakened and enforcement collapses?
• What are the moral consequences of using force without credible accountability?
• Do economic policies that enrich the wealthy while increasing household costs reflect fairness?
• Why ignore scientific evidence when public health and long-term stability are at stake?

Love of neighbor, if it is to mean anything in politics, requires protecting the vulnerable, respecting law and accountability, stewarding the environment, and making decisions grounded in evidence rather than fear.

Compassionate citizenship

In a democracy, leaders reflect the values of the voters who empower them. If we want strong communities, healthy environments, and fair economic systems, then accountability matters as much as rhetoric.

Voting for leaders who prioritize long-term sustainability, diplomacy over conflict, and evidence-based policy is one way to act on those values. The deeper challenge is ongoing: to build a political culture where care for one another is measured not by slogans, but by what we are willing to protect together.

Final question: How will your choices contribute to a society that cares for all its members?