In a searing critique of President Donald Trump’s leadership and the moral choices facing Americans, philosopher Susan Neiman has called out what she describes as his “evil” influence on U.S. society in her latest book, Call It Evil: Understanding the Trump Era. In it, Neiman argues that the reluctance to label Trump’s actions as evil has not only compromised American values but has led to real-world consequences.

Neiman, who previously directed the Einstein Forum in Berlin, delivered her criticism as momentum builds against Trump’s policies. Over the weekend, millions participated in the nationwide “No Kings” rallies, where between 5 and 7 million people convened for thousands of local events to express opposition to the current administration.

According to Samuel Clowes Huneke, writing for The New Republic, Neiman’s book reveals a chain of events and decisions that showcase Trump’s moral depravity. She argues that the right has effectively commandeered the language of ethics, leaving those on the left reactive rather than proactive in discussions about values and morality.

“Our culture’s reluctance to trade in moral ideas,” Neiman asserts, “has left them to right-wing demagogues and brought us to this pass.” She insists that acknowledging the moral implications of Trump’s actions is essential for the country’s future.

Neiman highlights specific incidents, such as Trump’s controversial 2025 decision to send 238 immigrants to CECOT prison in El Salvador, a facility notorious for inhumane treatment. At the time, then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem was photographed outside a cage of detainees, prompting a weak response from many Democrats. Huneke points out that the issue wasn’t a deficiency in polling data, but rather a lack of moral courage.

Some political figures appeared resigned to Trump’s influence, suggesting that his electoral success reflected the will of the people. Neiman’s analysis suggests this passivity could deepen the moral crisis the nation faces.

Neiman argues that this moral degradation extends beyond Trump himself, blaming a broader ideological shift that prioritizes greed and self-interest over the public good. In this view, she contends, Trump symbolizes the loudest articulation of America’s descent.

Huneke echoes Neiman’s call for moral clarity, suggesting that existing discourse often overlooks the real suffering experienced by marginalized individuals. His critique of Neiman’s focus on conservatives’ fixation with identity politics reflects a belief that she misplaces blame and inadequately addresses the central challenges at hand.

Despite the critique offered by Neiman, Huneke emphasizes that American activism persists. He cites instances of resistance, including individuals defending their communities and states safeguarding reproductive rights and gender-affirming care, showcasing that moral arguments are embedded in action.

Huneke challenges Neiman’s suggestion that discourse around morality has devolved into empty phrases, arguing that genuine resistance does not require intellectual consensus on terminology. Instead, confronting and naming the “cruelty” wrought by the Trump administration is paramount.

While Neiman insists on labeling Trump as evil, Huneke prompts a broader moral discourse that encompasses systems and individuals enabling harm. This nuanced approach involves recognizing and supporting those actively opposing injustices.

Ultimately, Huneke believes that labeling moral conviction should rely more on actions than rhetoric, stating: “Cruelty cannot remain an abstract philosophical problem.” There’s an urgent need to respond to the realities of those suffering under current policies.

As the nation stands at a crossroads, this call for moral engagement may become increasingly significant. Americans are faced with the challenge not just of opposing Trump but redefining the values that should guide the nation moving forward.

This philosophical examination of Trump’s presidency underscores a greater existential inquiry for the United States: How long can a society thrive when it turns a blind eye to the moral implications of its choices?

In the wake of mass protests and philosophical debates, the hope lies in rekindling a spirit of moral action among Americans—one that can shape the future in defiance of divisive politics.

Neiman’s assessment serves as a vital conversation starter about the moral landscapes many Americans inhabit today, emphasizing that the stakes are higher than ever as Trump navigates his presidency.

As echoes of dissent reverberate across the country, the question remains: Will this introspection galvanize action, or will complacency prevail while Trump continues to define the moral narrative of a nation?