- Even before he took his oath of office in January, President Donald Trump dominated national politics and controlled the national narrative.

Today's guest helps us look back at the impact of the President's rhetoric, policies and actions in 2025 as we name our story of the year.

She's Dr.

Evelyn Farkas, this week on Story in the Public Square.

(bright music) (bright music continues) (bright music fades) Hello and welcome to a Story in the Public Square where storytelling meets public affairs.

I'm Jim Ludes from the Pell Center at Salve Regina University.

- And I'm G. Wayne Miller, also with Salve's Pell Center.

- And joining us this week is an old friend.

Dr.

Evelyn Farkas is a former Defense Department official in the Obama administration.

She's now executive director of the McCain Institute, named for one of the greatest American senator John McCain.

Evelyn, thank you so much for being with us.

- Thank you so much for having me back, Jim.

- Well, you know, I wanna start right where we started last year, in the war in Ukraine, which this year I think that the policies out of Washington have seen some pretty dramatic swings from the spectacle of that confrontation in the Oval Office to the photo-ops summit in Alaska.

And now even to sort of reports that America was considering long range weapons for Ukraine.

Where does that war stand at the end of 2025?

- Well, you're right, Jim, the dynamic has shifted.

Obviously, President Trump has been the main mover or the main impetus for the shift because he came into office telling the Europeans, and, you know, frankly, on a pledge to the Americans that America would no longer be footing as much of the bill for Ukraine directly.

And so, now we see the Europeans stepping up, not only to provide more for their own safety and security vis-a-vis Russia, but they are essentially buying American weapons and providing them to Ukraine.

What's the situation on the battlefield, though?

It remains, unfortunately, roughly the same.

There's a horrendous bloody stalemate where Russians are dying.

Estimates are, according to the latest economist, at five times.

So five Russians for every Ukrainian dying every day.

They're dying at greater numbers than the Ukrainians and we can get into what all that means.

But on the battlefield, not much is changing in terms of the front line, in terms of the ground war.

However, strategically, the Ukrainians have made a big move this year, and really just in the recent months, increasing their targeting of Russian strategic energy facilities in the rear, which is to say, in Russia proper deep inside of Russia.

And there are estimates that 20% of Russia's refining on oil capability is offline now.

We know that there are lines inside Russia for petrol, as European say, or for gasoline for their cars and the price of oil in Russia has also gone up.

So there's incredible pressure now being increased by Ukraine on the Russian economy and on the war machine.

- Do you have a sense of how the war ends?

I mean, I get why Ukraine keeps fighting.

Why do the Russians keep fighting?

- The Russians keep fighting because Vladimir Putin doesn't know what else to do.

He's frankly losing, but he's the type of leader, I've seen this watching him, you know, now I don't even know how many years, but you know, in the last decade and then this one, he has been essentially not operating with a clear strategy.

He just lives to fight for another day.

And he's waiting for some kind of break to happen.

And I don't think he's going to get it, frankly.

The Ukrainians, as you said, are going to hang on.

The Russians are gonna lose lives.

The Europeans are not going to give up because they understand this is now existential for them, given what Russia's doing to Europe and perhaps we'll talk about that.

So, you know, the way it ends is, frankly, the Russians deciding the war is over and perhaps with some real push from the United States and our allies, not just in Europe, but in Asia Pacific and elsewhere.

- So not unrelated, Europe in 2025 found itself in the midst of the largest, most extensive sabotage campaign since the end of the Second World War.

How dangerous is this to the international situation now?

- Yeah, I mean, Wayne, this is incredibly dangerous.

This is, you know, potentially, you know, leading to a war between NATO and Russia.

Russia is baiting NATO, testing NATO by sending airplanes manned aircraft into Estonia, into their airspace, and then also, of course, through these drone attacks.

And, you know, the Europeans are calling them sabotage but really it's in the eye of the beholder.

And because no lives have been lost thus far, it hasn't been cause for Europe to decide collectively that Russia's actually attacking them.

But it is a violation of their airspace.

It's a violation of their sovereignty.

And of course, the explosions and the other things that have happened on the ground in France, in Czechia, in multiple countries all across Europe, those are clear violations also, of course, of sovereignty in the safety of Europeans.

- You know, closer to home.

We're witnessing at the end of 2025, the buildup of substantial American military power in the Caribbean that is seems to be targeting Venezuela and what the administration describes as drug boats coming from Venezuela to the United States.

What's your assessment of the situation in that part of the world and the Trump administration's approach to it?

- Well, first of all, I think the Trump administration, Jim, is prioritizing the western hemisphere over, it appears, stability in the Middle East.

They just moved a carrier from the Middle East into the Caribbean, I believe are closer to the shore off of Venezuela.

And then they also are prioritizing it over, so it being western hemisphere, Latin America, over our concerns with regard to Russia and China.

And that to me is dangerous because the real adversaries are Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran.

And with so much emphasis on Venezuela, we risk encouraging those other bad actors to really take some action against the United States that could harm us and our interests and our people.

Venezuela is not a vital threat to the United States.

Yes, it's a dictatorial non-democratic government.

Maduro, who's the leader got in there basically after an election, demonstrated, and they had literally the receipts to prove it, that the opposition won.

He said, I don't care.

I'm gonna stay in power.

So he's an unlawful dictator running Venezuela.

And yes, he's also benefiting from the drug trade.

But again, I don't know that that, that is a direct vital existential threat to the United States that merits this level of attention.

Having said that, I do think that it's good that this government, that our government is trying to pressure Maduro to leave office, but I don't like all the tactics.

And I would say most legal experts and most national security experts will contend that what the President's doing in terms of the bombing of ships and the killing of civilians without evidence and without a war being declared is illegal under international law.

And we're joined, those experts who are concerned about what this does for the United States in terms of our credibility and in terms of the legal jeopardy for our military personnel, they are joined by the United Kingdom, which has just said according to, you know, this has not been declared by them publicly, but according to media reports, the United Kingdom has said that they will not share intelligence information, which they normally do, on the Caribbean and in that area off of Venezuela, because of course, they have territories that we all like to go vacation in.

- So, there have been other big pivots in the US' role in the world this year as well.

You know, a couple of examples.

The President made claims or said he was seeking to acquire Greenland and also the Panama Canal.

How do these events shape our view, our stature in the world in terms of our allies and in terms of our adversaries?

- Yeah, Wayne, and I would add to that, of course, he hasn't really completely given up the language about Canada being the 51st state.

- Right.

Yeah, exactly.

- So this is on the one hand, you know, people laugh at it, but, you know, some people do.

But Denmark is not laughing.

The prime minister of Denmark had said, this is threatening.

You know, Greenland is part of Denmark.

It's a territory governed by, in a shared power sharing relationship between the people of Greenland who have their own local government as well as of course on foreign and defense policy, the Danish state.

And so, this is troubling to our NATO ally and our other NATO ally Canada also has taken a front to being called the 51st State.

It's a kind of perspective, Wayne, that I find dangerous because rather than being funny, it's a real challenge to the international order.

And it's almost, you know, a gift to Vladimir Putin who would like to go back to a sphere of influence situation where bigger countries determine the allegiances and alliances of smaller countries rather than respecting borders and allowing the map to remain as it is post World War II.

You know, Putin wants to remake the map and reconstitute his empire.

President Trump, when he talks about the US having control over these territories, it's imperial.

And so, that is disconcerting to say the least.

- Evelyn, we could talk to you for the entire episode about some of the international challenges, but there are some other issues I wanna make sure we get to.

2025 saw a spasm or continued a spasm of political violence in this country, which is at the very minimum, profoundly troubling.

Earlier in the year, Melissa Hortman, the speaker of the Minnesota House of Representatives and her husband were murdered.

Her colleague in the state senate, John Hoffman and his wife were shot.

And of course, we had the assassination of Charlie Kirk earlier this year in front of something like 3,000 students on a university campus in Utah.

What does this resurgence of political violence in American public life mean for the United States at the end of 2025?

- Well, Jim, it's clearly a distressing development because nobody wants to see innocent people killed because of other people's political beliefs.

And these are murders, they're coldblooded murders, but they are motivated in large part by politics.

I will add though that, you know, I think, you know, your story maybe several years ago was COVID.

You know, the big story.

- Yeah.

- And I think this might also be a little bit of an overhang of COVID.

And then I know you guys have also focused on social media.

Those things also come into play here.

We have a recipe for increased political violence.

There's polarization, there's an inability to listen to the other side.

I do worry very much that there could be an increased, an increase of violence, especially if it's tolerated by Americans.

So we need the quiet middle to speak out or to demonstrate, you know, meaning by just standing up and being counted that they will not tolerate violence.

But I will note that, you know, people went and demonstrated on No King's Day recently, and we had elections just, I think it was last week, the time flies, (chuckles) and they were all conducted peacefully.

So, I don't think that we should be unduly alarmist but it is, of course, distressing to see.

- So let's get your take on Elon Musk this year.

Began the year with DOGE, and of course, we all remember, probably will never forget that photograph of him with a chainsaw.

And as the year progressed, he had different stances, different opinions, and he is on the verge of getting a $1 trillion package for his role in Tesla, which he owns.

Is there a risk to amassing that kind of, well, I mean that wealth you can't even, you know, you just can't even imagine.

Are there risks to amassing that kind of wealth in one person, Elon Musk?

- Well, clearly we have issues with income disparity in the United States.

You know, I won't even get into taxation.

You know, John D. Rockefeller amassed an incredible amount of wealth.

If you read the biography "Titan" you understand though that he was grounded in religion and grounded in a sense that he owed something back to society because of all of the wealth that he had made because of our system, which had allowed him to make this stupendous financial windfall, if you will.

And Elon Musk does not seem to have this charitable perspective.

And in fact, what he's done is caused through his axing of US Agency for International Development, directly led to the death, because it was so sudden, so brutal, it led to the deaths of children.

You can look at Nicholas Kristof's, you know, columns on it.

Children died in Africa because of the lack of medicines, because of the sudden shutdown of USAID.

And many Americans lost their jobs, lost their livelihood, America lost soft power.

So it was, he is a brilliant entrepreneur and obviously a successful businessman.

He had no business going into government and downsizing in such a cruel, haphazard, unstrategic fashion.

- [Jim] Is it a lack of empathy?

- Perhaps, Jim.

I can't, I don't know him personally.

- Yeah, fair enough, fair enough.

You know, as a young man, as a young Catholic man, I was taught to believe that there would never ever be an American Catholic pope.

- I was taught the same thing.

- Right?

And this is- - Never gonna happen.

- Never gonna happen and for a lot of reasons, including which the power of the United States and the global community, the institution of the church would never select an American to lead the faithful across the globe.

But in 2025, the Catholic Church proved me and Wayne entirely wrong.

What does the selection of Leo XIV as pope mean about America's role in the world and about the future of the Catholic church?

- Well, I think it's a beautiful thing because as an American, and also having been raised Catholic, you know, I think we're all proud that he was picked for this role.

And it's a role that's really important today because of the reality that there is not enough emphasis on our shared common humanity, on morality, on frankly, all those things that you learn in the major religions, you know, the golden rules, right?

And this is a man who can speak multiple languages.

He can speak not just English, but American.

(chuckles) He can appeal to Americans.

(Jim and Wayne laughing) And we are still the strongest military, political, and economic power.

So in that respect, he has influence over us.

And I think the moment was right because his views are not widely held or widely expressed in our politics.

And it is a moment perhaps that the church understood that actually we need to try to influence American politics to bring America back to what is good, to our basic humanity.

I mean, you just asked me the previous question about DOGE and basically, frankly, you know, a loss of lives all over the world because of cruelty, and Americans are better than that.

And so, I think this new pope will challenge us to live up to that American ideal.

- You know, across all of these things if there's a through line, I see a loss of American soft power.

We talked about sort of Elon Musk and DOGE, but USAID, which has done tremendous good around the world, was shuttered by this administration.

The voice of America has effectively been silenced.

What does the loss of those instruments of soft power mean for the United States and the world?

- Yeah, and I also would add, just to your question, the loss of these instruments that we purchased at so pennies on the dollar as they say.

And you know, Senator Graham himself, he would talk about how little we were spending on this soft power.

And the soft power is what actually gets people to, or countries, frankly, in the United States, to convert our power into influence.

What does that mean?

It means we have raw power.

You know, we have lots of money, we have battleships and planes, and you know, we own all this territory and we have all this citizens.

But to get the world to change, we need to use our power and convert it into influence.

Influence is what makes other countries join us to do whatever it is that we want to do, whether it's to defeat another autocrat or to, you know, do something about climate change.

So, at the end of the day, raw power is not sufficient if you're not willing to, and you're not able to turn it into influence.

Soft power turned it into influence because we could call a country up and say, "Hey, listen, we have this problem percolating.

We need your help."

And that country would say, "Sure, you're providing, you know, AIDS medicine or earthquake relief, you know, to my people.

I will be there for you and you can fill me in on the details later."

That's not going to happen now, you know, given the current situation.

There's a lack of, there's a loss of trust and frankly, anger.

- Well, that brings us to the story of the year.

The reality is that whatever your politics are, there's no denying the impact President Donald Trump's return to power has had on the United States.

In months of frenzied headlines, successive executive orders, and social media posts, the President has reshaped the federal government and America's role in the world.

He has used masked federal law enforcement to arrest immigrants with varying levels of documentation, even those following the law on appearing at immigration courts.

He sent the National Guard and active duty military into America cities and warned about a so-called, quote, "enemy within."

On social media and in interviews, the President has sought to end the careers of late night comedians and alter the operations of America's elite universities.

He is turning the White House into a gilded palace, not a house of the people.

And he publicly ordered the prosecution of his political enemies.

He seems intent on thwarting congress and the courts and he fired inspectors general across the government who might point to the limits in law of presidential actions.

At the same time, the President and his administration have tried to drive LGBTQ Americans back into the shadows.

He has cut federal funds for anything that mentioned diversity, equity, and inclusion.

And he has warned the Smithsonian Institution to offer only a sanitized version of American history.

And so, our 2025 story of the year is President Donald Trump's effort to restate the story of America in words, memory, and actions in a way that excludes millions of Americans.

Evelyn, in your book, "Fractured States and U.S.

Foreign Policy," you studied ethnic conflict in Eastern Europe after the Cold War.

Do any of these actions by President Trump remind you of what you studied then and what's the danger we face?

- Well, my book looked actually also at Iraq and Ethiopia, but you're correct.

In looking at Eastern Europe and the fall of Yugoslavia, there was a real narrative that irresponsible nationalist leaders used to stir up fear of the other.

And I think that is something that President Trump has done, sort of vilifying those who don't agree with him or his policies, and certainly stirring up fear of immigrants.

You know, we are a nation of immigrants.

We need immigrants.

Yes, we need them to come in in an orderly, legal fashion, and we need to be able to have some control over which immigrants we allow into our country.

But vilifying them and dehumanizing them then leads to the next step, which is essentially locking them up, deporting them forcibly to places where they'll not only be locked up, but likely tortured and killed.

And so, yes, there are some actions, some types of politics that I've seen President Trump employ that are dangerous and do threaten our society.

- So with multiple media companies and big law firms finding settlements with President Trump, how are private institutions holding up in this environment?

- Well, this is the beauty of America, Wayne.

We are a country of multiple people, but also organizations.

Our civic institutions are strong.

And while we have seen a lot of, you know, what people call sort of advance capitulation, you know, there's no huge threat, but you capitulate 'cause you're trying to just mollify the President and give in to his desire for power over you.

I think the biggest point, and I would just echo what you're saying here with regard to the story of the year, is that President Trump is trying to remake the executive and remake our constitution by taking the amount of power that he's just seized for himself.

And thus far, we have seen institutions, including the courts, Wayne, and Congress pushed back, but not as much as many people would like.

So, there's still a great amount of concern about the executive branch and whether and how President Trump has overstepped his power with regard to the words of the Constitution.

- You know, I'm curious too of what your thoughts are about our old, the US Senate, US Congress more generally.

There are not any other John McCain's up there that I can see right now.

How do you think our old employer is faring in this environment?

- Yeah, I mean, the Senate, unfortunately, is not living up to its values.

You know, if Senator McCain were alive today, he would say, "Let's get back to the regular order of business where we put our institution and our allegiance to the Constitution above any allegiance to a party, you know, or particular president."

And when we served, as you know, Jim, you know, I served with John Warner who was the Republican before McCain, chair of the Armed Services Committee.

He would often oppose his president, if you will, so, the Republican President George W. Bush at the time.

That was common.

Now sometimes they would do it more quietly behind closed doors.

So we aren't seeing the Senate checking, providing its check on executive power, nor are we seeing the Senate legislating in order to give the justices to give the Supreme Court a clear signal with regard to the will of the American people.

I do know, though, that both, you know, on the Republican side, on the Democratic side, there are many senators who are concerned, who I believe they will step up and they will legislate and they will reengage, if you will.

We're seeing some more of that recently.

President Trump doesn't have another term left and the elections, the recent elections that were held, albeit of course mostly in blue or purple areas, although some of them were in the south in Georgia and in the Carolinas, did provide a signal to Republicans and Democrats alike that they are on solid ground with the American people if they push back against the White House.

- So what advice do you have for folks who don't like what's happening now and wanna make some change?

- Well, first vote at all levels.

Second, of course, engage in helping the political process, meaning go and help out in, you know, on election day.

Educate yourself, educate other people, support through your money a local media, and make sure that there's civic education in your schools.

You know, just be a better citizen.

And then I would say reach out to people who you don't agree with at the Thanksgiving table.

You know, I know politics can be fraught, but try to understand why are you afraid of X or Y?

And that goes for both sides.

We need to try to find the middle ground.

We all agree that Americans should have, you know, the best quality of life that they can be afforded, you know, given all the constraints that we all operate under.

We all agree, people should have access to food, water, you know, a livelihood, health.

And so, we just need to figure out how we get there and exactly what that means.

- Great insights, great advice.

Dr.

Evelyn Farkas from the McCain Institute at Arizona State University.

Thank you so much for spending some time and helping us name this year's Story of the Year.

But that's all the time we've got this week.

If you wanna know more about the show, you can find us on social media or visit salve.edu/pellcenter where you can always catch up on previous episodes.

For G. Wayne Miller, I'm Jim Ludes asking you to join us again next time for our Story in the Public Square.

(bright music) (bright music continues) (bright music continues) (bright music fades) (gentle acoustic music) (no audio)