It appears that Congress is asleep at the wheel and Trump has hijacked the car to change the country as he sees fit. He has identified many problems — ranging from unfair tariff policies to soggy paper straws to antisemitism — that he can fix with a quick stroke of the pen, and no one has stopped him.

Some of these problems are fabricated so that Trump can respond in ways that benefit him, like his reaction to alleged voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election. Indeed, the Associated Press found that of the 25 million ballots cast in six swing states that year, just 475 were potentially fraudulent.

In response to this non-issue, Trump signed an executive order that gives his administration the ability to “enforce Federal law and to protect the integrity of our election process.” This order not only imposes stringent identification laws — which will disproportionately suppress votes from marginalized groups — but it would allow him to potentially manipulate the ballot box in his favor.

This move is a chilling violation of the Constitution, which does not give this authority to the executive.

That said, there are other issues the administration has identified that have a flicker of truth behind them, including the Trump administration’s claim that college campuses are “ideologically captured,” or overwhelmingly liberal in a way that stifles discourse.

Even I, a registered Democrat who is outspoken in my liberal beliefs, have found myself self-censoring in a few classes because I’m worried about my grade. It’s never something that preoccupied me, but it detracts from my overall education.

Yet, I find the so-called solutions proposed to Harvard to encourage “viewpoint diversity” on campus — including designating professorships for conservative thinkers and giving priority in admissions for conservative students — as anathema to the idea of merit that the administration supposedly prizes, as well as logistically unfeasible.

These measures, along with regulations to monitor students’ “anti-American” sentiments and to allow federal review of academic departments, are an attack on higher education. They reduce the possibility of free speech on campus, rather than bolster it. Simultaneously, the government is deporting people for unclear reasons, other than differing opinions, which I wrote about in my first column.

Up until about two months ago, I would have said that Northwestern should have a serious conversation about how to encourage robust debate and prevent self-censorship; specifically, on how to allow ideas that may deviate from a squarely progressive viewpoint. Now, the very prospect of such a discussion seems foolish, even laughable.

I’m more eager to defend the University — and less willing to admit its flaws — than ever before. I don’t want someone to misinterpret my opinions as supporting the administration’s actions, and I certainly don’t want to incite the government to target the University any more than it has already.

This change in my thinking has led me to realize that Trump’s policies not only attack our institutions, but create a subtler problem simultaneously. They make us unwilling to acknowledge that there was ever anything wrong in the first place, and therefore leave us further from truly improving our institutions and communities.

I should be clear: Trump doesn’t have good intentions when he proposes these solutions. He wants to promote free speech on campuses not because he values robust debate, but because he wants more people to promote his ideas — and punish them if they disagree. However, it doesn’t change the fact that beneath Trump’s cynical maneuvers lies a real issue.

There is a broader pattern here. Although there may be a hint of truth to the problems at hand, progress through Trump’s executive orders isn’t progress at all.

I could see this applying to the issue of safety in some Democrat-run cities — Trump signed an executive order intended to make D.C. safer — RFK Jr.’s desire to regulate additives in foods and the administration’s supposed wishes to crack down on antisemitism. All of these are real, potent issues, but the administration’s actions may make the problems worse, while making us more polarized.

There were things to be fixed in this country before Donald Trump. I wish that some of these problems, like the lack of truly diverse discourse on college campuses, hadn’t been so controversial for more left-leaning people like me to acknowledge before the election, but it’s too late now.

There will be even more to be fixed after he is gone in four years, given his policy agenda. I can only hope that his so-called solutions don’t do irreparable damage in the meantime.

Talia Winiarsky is a Weinberg junior. She can be contacted at [email protected]. If you would like to respond publicly to this op-ed, send a Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. The views expressed in this piece do not necessarily reflect the views of all staff members of The Daily Northwestern.