The Conversation convenes this week with the Opinion columnist David Brooks, the contributing Opinion writer E.J. Dionne Jr. and the former host of NPR’s “All Things Considered” Robert Siegel to unpack a week of turbulent news across the globe, including the state of the Trump presidency, economic anxiety in America and the president’s approach to national security.
Below is a transcript of an episode of “The Opinions.” We recommend listening to it in its original form for the full effect. You can do so using the player above or on the NYTimes app, Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, YouTube, iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts.
The transcript has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
Robert Siegel: Hi. I’m Robert Siegel. It’s been a couple of months since I got to hear what my two old friends have to say about politics, and a lot has happened since then: the longest government shutdown ever; the elections; the demolition of the East Wing of the White House; and hints that public support for Donald Trump, who led the Republicans to a sweep of both Houses of Congress and the White House, might be weakening.
Lots to talk about with New York Times columnist David Brooks.
David Brooks: Good to be with you, Robert.
Siegel: Good to see you again. And Times Opinion contributing writer E.J. Dionne.
E.J. Dionne Jr.: Great to be with you both. Thank you.
Siegel: Great to be with you. Let’s start with an appraisal of where Donald Trump stands nearly a year into his second administration.
David, why don’t you start us off?
Brooks: We are at the 532nd episode of Donald Trump Is Finished. I think a lot of people are seeing some things that are really bad for Donald Trump. His polls are down slightly. The Republicans have lost every major election in the last year. There were the Indiana state senators standing up to him with impunity, hanging together.
And to me, one of the most interesting facts is that 20 percent of Trump voters think Donald Trump is responsible for the economy.
E.J. is about to talk more about this if he’s consistent with his guest essay in The Times the other day.
Dionne: I think I’ll contradict myself. [Laughs.]
Brooks: But there are people who are flaking off, but is it something pivotal? Are we at a pivotal moment? I don’t think so.
If you asked people a couple of months ago who was a better president, Donald Trump or Joe Biden, there was still a healthy majority that said Donald Trump.
Siegel: Hm.
Brooks: If I begin to see members of the House of Representatives or the Senate flake off, then that’ll be a thing. But we have not seen that at all.
And finally, Donald Trump is not a man to be inhibited by opposition or by rules, and so he’s the president of my lifetime, I think all our lifetimes, who has exercised power more freely and while ignoring restraints — and I think he’ll continue to do that.
Siegel: But flaking off is a measured statement.
Brooks: Decay, but not fracture.
Siegel: Not fracture. [Laughs.] E.J., you have written about Donald Trump losing what you call the reasonable majority. Is there a reasonable majority?
Dionne: I think there is a reasonable majority in the country. One of the reasons I use that phrase is because a lot of people out there who voted for Trump were not part of the MAGA base, were not “fooled” by Donald Trump.
They were people who were mad about the cost of living and, in some cases, angry about immigration, particularly what was happening at the southern border. They weren’t necessarily sold on Trump.
Most of those people have taken a look at what has happened in the last year and they have just moved away. They’ve said: This is not what we voted for.
He ignores the primary issue that pushed him their way, which is the cost of living — and a billionaire regularly mocking affordability and, by the way, surrounding himself with billionaires, is not someone who’s going to appeal to that constituency.
They seem distracted by personal obsessions — you mentioned even the destruction of the East Wing of the White House — and overreach, where even when they agreed with him on immigration, huge majorities dislike many aspects of what he’s doing.
So I think people looked at this, reasoned their way to opposition, and I think this is a little bigger than David’s analysis suggests.
Some of the polls, Gallup, AP-NORC, have him down at 36 percent, and that up to a quarter of his own voters, if the high measures are right, have moved away from him.
The last couple of months feel like that Afghanistan moment for Joe Biden. If you remember, after the chaos in Afghanistan, Biden never recovered from the sharp drop in the polls he had then.
Now, David’s right; he could come back. And it’s certainly true that Trump is willing to exercise power in a way — in many cases, in the view of some of us, illegally — that no other president has been willing to. So he is going to keep doing that.
But I think there’s pushback. I just don’t think those Indiana Republicans are a one-off. There are a lot of reasons to think there was something special about that state.
Siegel: You’re speaking of the Republicans who would not do the redistricting that Trump wanted.
Dionne: Right. A majority of Senate Republicans, state senators in Indiana rejected the midterm redistricting.
I just think something is happening. There’s a shift here, and we’ll find out in a few months which one of us is right about that.
Brooks: Can I just say one thing, actually, to pile on E.J.’s case to be for it? I think Donald Trump’s reaction to the last months has been pretty terrible.
Dionne: Yeah.
Brooks: Symptomatic of that is when he says: Well, you should get by with two pencils. You don’t need 32 dolls. You only need two dolls. That is demonstrating a casual indifference to the economic pain people feel. And one thing people really detest is that.
But the second point I’d like to make, this goes back to something we talked about in one of our earlier conversations about my pet peeve, about hating the way the word “fight” is used in politics. “We need to fight.”
To me, that means we need to scream louder and pump up our base. But politics is about persuasion, not fighting. And I think E.J.’s numbers demonstrate that Trump voters, like all voters, are basically reasonable, and you can persuade them if you’re willing to meet them where they are.
Siegel: There have been presidents who, by virtue of personality or the way their political message is framed, fill people with optimism and excitement.
I think of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan as people who had that power. This optimism and excitement are not words I would use to describe the mood of the country right now. The more common word is anxiety. Yes?
Dionne: I think that’s right. It’s interesting you say that. A friend of mine was talking to a C.E.O. he works with, and the C.E.O. said that besides Trump, of course, giving himself A-plus-plus-plus on the economy, he doesn’t inspire people to feel that things are great, that things are good.
He tends to have very angry, negative rhetoric that, I think, actually hurts. There’s enormous anxiety in the country and — David has written about this quite a lot — there’s a lot of loneliness, social isolation in the country.
But I also think that there’s an economic component. David Wallace-Wells of The Times wrote a really excellent piece back in July about where Mamdani came from — and it wasn’t about the proletariat. He talked about an emergent coalition of the precariat, which I think is going to be, along with affordability, a word of the year.
These are folks who are definitely working-class people but really can extend higher up the income class. They’re mad about affordability, they’re enraged about inequality and corruption and what they see as the entitlement and impunity, as David put it, of the very wealthy. I think there is just an unease.
And lastly, there’s technology. Rahm Emanuel can be very quippy, the former mayor of Chicago. He said a lot of Americans are going to have to choose: Do they want their kids to be raised by parents or an algorithm? That’s one of the kinds of anxieties, along with anxieties about employment, that technology is raising.
Brooks: To be fair, Donald Trump built his career on American carnage, on darkness. He didn’t invent it. He played on what was already out there.
There’s a thing called Google Ngrams, which measures all the words in usage in the English language — across newspapers, magazines and books. You can go to databases, stretching all the way back to the 1850s, and discover what words were used.
Most of the words used in the English language were positive words, words of positive emotion. We were an optimistic people, and that stretched through the Civil War. It stretched through the World Wars. It stretched through the Great Depression. And now, negative words are used much more often than positive words. So we are in the most pessimistic, darkest cultural atmosphere in American history, at least stretching back to 1850.
And so I will say, this level of disgust with the future is very alien to the American cultural DNA. History turns and people reject the old show. They get sick of the old show and they want a new show.
So, if you had run for president in 2016 or 2020 or 2024 on Reagan-esque optimism, you would get crushed. But maybe by 2028, 2032, I would not be surprised if this cycle has turned.
Dionne: Just a real quick point: You mentioned the elections in the fall. It struck me after the elections that when you looked at Abigail Spanberger in Virginia, the Democrat who got elected governor, if you look at Mikie Sherrill in New Jersey, who got elected, and to a significant degree Zohran Mamdani in New York — they all ran on anger at the status quo and prices, but they all conveyed a kind of a sense of empathy, solidarity, mutual respect.
If I were to guess the kind of Democrat who is going to win the nomination, it’s someone who can play on two tracks at the same time: certainly to express the anger Democrats feel about Trump and inequality and all those problems, but marry that to a sense of a hopeful future. I think there’s still a big market for empathy and solidarity out there.
Siegel: I’d just like to note, before we move on to talking about the economy more broadly, the strange situation we’re in with respect to artificial intelligence. We’re waiting for this technology to mature and to be adapted.
It’s the most ballyhooed technological change I can think of in my life — unless we go back to atomic energy in the 1950s. It’s going to change everything. We’re paying huge electricity bills because of it. We’re also seeing the stock market being supported by it.
Yet it’s not clear whether people are hopeful about this, want us to be the nation that scores the best with artificial intelligence, or whether they’re terrified of it.
Brooks: I’ve interviewed dozens of A.I. experts and engineers, and some of them are doomers. They think it’s going to turn us into paper clips and destroy civilization.
And some of them think it’s the greatest thing. We’re going to expand G.D.P., by 600,000 percent of productivity by … and their view has nothing to do with the evidence in front of them.
.op-aside { display: none; border-top: 1px solid var(–color-stroke-tertiary,#C7C7C7); border-bottom: 1px solid var(–color-stroke-tertiary,#C7C7C7); font-family: nyt-franklin, helvetica, sans-serif; flex-direction: row; justify-content: space-between; padding-top: 1.25rem; padding-bottom: 1.25rem; position: relative; max-width: 600px; margin: 2rem 20px; }
.op-aside p { margin: 0; font-family: nyt-franklin, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 1rem; line-height: 1.3rem; margin-top: 0.4rem; margin-right: 2rem; font-weight: 600; flex-grow: 1; }
.SHA_opinionPrompt_0325_1_Prompt .op-aside { display: flex; }
@media (min-width: 640px) { .op-aside { margin: 2rem auto; } }
.op-buttonWrap { visibility: hidden; display: flex; right: 42px; position: absolute; background: var(–color-background-inverseSecondary, hsla(0,0%,21.18%,1)); border-radius: 3px; height: 25px; padding: 0 10px; align-items: center; justify-content: center; top: calc((100% – 25px) / 2); }
.op-copiedText { font-size: 0.75rem; line-height: 0.75rem; color: var(–color-content-inversePrimary, #fff); white-space: pre; margin-top: 1px; }
.op-button { display: flex; border: 1px solid var(–color-stroke-tertiary, #C7C7C7); height: 2rem; width: 2rem; background: transparent; border-radius: 50%; cursor: pointer; margin: auto; padding-inline: 6px; flex-direction: column; justify-content: center; flex-shrink: 0; }
.op-button:hover { background-color: var(–color-background-tertiary, #EBEBEB); }
.op-button path { fill: var(–color-content-primary,#121212); }
Know someone who would want to read this? Share the column.
Siegel: [Laughs.]
Brooks: Their view has entirely to do with the nature of their temperament. It’s their DNA. Optimistic people think it’s going to be great, and pessimistic people think it’s going to be terrible.
I think it’s going to be like the railroads. It’s a very powerful technology, which will produce a short-term series of bubbles as everybody leaps into it, and then in the long term, it’ll be OK.
Dionne: I think we should ask A.I. what the future will be under A.I., and maybe A.I. will tell us.
I think both views are there and I think both views are true. That’s the problem with talking about A.I. The wonder and the fear are twins, in a way. They’re part of a sensible reaction to A.I.
Siegel: Well, moving on to the economy more broadly, something you’ve both alluded to is that there’s an unusual political divide in the country right now.
Democrats acknowledge an affordability crisis, and they have lots of schemes to deal with it — to do away with Trump’s tariffs, to restore these subsidies for health insurance that you buy on the exchanges.
And the Republicans, rather than having a competing agenda to cope with the crisis, President Trump says there is no crisis. He says it’s a hoax, it’s a Democratic con job.
Is he re-enacting Joe Biden’s mistake of telling people who are hurting, who are experiencing inflation for the first time in their lives, most of them, that it’s all in your head?
Brooks: Yes. He’s doing exactly the same thing.
You’re sitting there in the Oval Office; advisers are saying: Look at the data, Mr. President. And the data is there, they’re not wrong. Median wages are at their highest point now than at any point in American history. Inflation is around 3 percent. Real wages are rising, which means things overall are getting more affordable.
You look at the data; it looks pretty good; and then you look at what’s unaffordable. Most things are getting more affordable. Most material products like TVs are getting more affordable.
What’s getting less affordable? The biggies are health care and housing — and especially housing in blue areas. So it’s hitting people in the housing piece of their lives, which is a major piece of their life.
The thing I’d tell Donald Trump if I had to talk to him is something I heard from a C.E.O. He said: I have customers coming to me with complaints. I go to my team and say, “Are these complaints valid?” and the team says, “No, not valid. We have the data.”
And the C.E.O. said to me: When that happens, I believe the anecdote and I don’t believe the data. [Siegel laughs.]
I think that’s right, because people are not fools about their own circumstance.
Siegel: I believe Newt Gingrich said, of the question of the affordability crisis: If the public thinks there’s an affordability crisis, there’s an affordability crisis. That’s the way you have to do it.
Dionne: The customer is never wrong, but I do think there are some real things.
You mentioned the data centers driving up the cost of electricity. Sherrill in New Jersey ran on a promise to freeze electricity prices for a while while they get a handle on it. That’s real. I think housing, especially in the big metros, which tend to be blue, is a real problem. Child care, health care and in some cases transportation, that is a real problem. The price of cars is a real problem.
Siegel: Higher education.
Dionne: And higher ed. We had high inflation for about a year, and then it started to dissipate. But prices tend not to go down on a lot of things. So these are real concerns, and they are things that are potentially responsive to policy and to political arguments.
You’re seeing Sherrill talking about putting a freeze on electricity prices. These fights over the data centers are going to be a really big issue in American politics. Spanberger’s talking about using alternative energy, which can actually bring down prices.
So I think we’re going to have a real debate over what might plausibly be done about affordability.
Siegel: What’s interesting is that you’re both saying that the iconic costs of the last election — which were a dozen eggs and a gallon of gasoline — just aren’t what we’re talking about when we’re talking about an affordability crisis.
What we’re discussing is consumer prices.
Brooks: Right. That was real inflation on things like eggs. But housing is a central thing.
One of the things that’s happened over the last generation or two is that people’s standards have changed. Matt Yglesias wrote a good Substack on this, which is that the median income, as I said, is now about $88,000 a year. If you take that median income and put it in the median city, that family of four, say, can afford to buy the home that families of four were content to buy in 1965.
It might have one bathroom, and people are sharing bedrooms, but nobody wants to live that way anymore. Furthermore, many fewer people are married, and many more people are living alone. So that puts up demand on housing, especially in the big metros, where people are more likely to be single.
There’s been a creep in our expectations of how we’re going to live, and I think that has added to some of the unhappiness, because people are not living up to their expectations.
Dionne: There’s a flip side to that as well, which is that people aren’t getting married and aren’t having children because they are anxious about being able to afford them.
More than that, putting aside money, Bill Galston in The Wall Street Journal wrote a couple of weeks ago about this whole natalism argument. Our birthrates tend to go up when people are broadly optimistic about the future.
Siegel: Confident, yes.
Dionne: We baby boomers exist because of that optimism. That is quite the opposite of what people are feeling now.
Dave Winston, the Republican pollster, had a good piece — he said that looking forward, you’re going to have to look at both the prices and whether wages are rising to meet them. Compared to the very rich, there’s a lot of sense of relative deprivation — their wages still haven’t risen compared to what’s happened at the very top, and I think that’s on people’s minds.
Siegel: Well, let’s turn to foreign policy right now, and in particular the remarkable document issued by the Trump administration. Its national security strategy.
I was struck most by what he said about Europe. Usually in the past, when people said “I think Europe ought to be spending more on its own defense,” it was in the context of: They’re rich; it’s no longer postwar 1948 in Europe; these countries are thriving, especially Germany, and they can do more and pay for their own defense.
This analysis more or less described Europe as being so rotten, it’s not worth defending. It described Europeans facing the “stark prospect of civilizational erasure,” which it attributes to immigration and the encroachment of the E.U. on national governments.
What’s going on here, David? This document could have called for reducing U.S. commitments to Europe or expecting the Europeans to do more without insulting them, all as being a civilization in rotten decline.
Brooks: Yeah, the Trump people say they were attacking the E.U. and the ruling elites, but not the parties that are actually leading in the polls — which are the AfD and the French conservatives and Nigel Farage in the U.K.
But what was interesting to me about the document is that it’s a foreign policy document written as if culture matters more than realpolitik.
There’s a study that has haunted me for years. It’s done by the World Values Survey, and they survey people all around the world on their values.
The key factor is: Are you an individualistic culture or are you a communal culture? Then they draw a helpful map to help you visualize the results. And on this map, most of the cultures of the world — Confucianism, Africa, Southeast Asia — they’re all in a clump.
And then there’s a little thing like Florida or Italy sticking out, and that thing sticking out is America and Western Europe. Our cultures are vastly more individualistic than cultures of anyplace else around the world. Our cultures are vastly less traditionalist than everywhere around the world.
Along comes Trump, and they feel this — I’m not sure they’ve seen the World Values Survey — and they think those modernists are destroying traditional values, and we’re going to be for traditional values, whether it’s Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping, and not those commies in Stockholm.
So it’s a weird document in that it’s culture first, but it does point to a real problem that there’s a culture gap between us and a lot of parts of the world.
Dionne: I think my friend David gives it a lot more credit when he says culture because I read that thing very carefully. I agree it’s a weird document and an interesting document. But business matters more than culture there.
What was really striking going through it was how much this was about a fairly narrow view of business interests. Some nice stuff about the working class here and there, but it was really about making deals.
But the other thing that was so disconcerting is that in the Cold War, the United States — sub rosa, they didn’t really want it to be explicit — supported parties of the center-left and center-right in Europe. We were on the side of democracy.
This document explicitly is supporting parties of the far right in Europe. Yeah, some of that’s about culture. It’s an obsession with immigration and identity. It’s a deeply identitarian document.
There’s something just so odd to me about the United States of America, which was built on immigration — all three of us at this table are here because we were an immigrant-welcoming country — and this document says Europe is falling apart now because it is welcoming immigrants.
Of course there are subtexts here. Is it really about race? Europe is becoming less European. What exactly does that mean? That sounds like it’s about the immigration of Muslims to Europe, and it has something to do with race.
But it’s a very disconcerting view compared to how we have thought — and I don’t mean we elites, I mean we Americans — have thought of ourselves.
Siegel: We are talking today after some horrible shootings over the weekend. Two students were killed and nine injured at Brown University, and overseas at least 15 people were killed at Bondi Beach in Sydney, Australia.
As of now the motive behind the Brown shooting is unclear, as of the time when we sat down to record this conversation. But in Australia, there’s no lack of clarity. The point of the shooting was to kill Jews. I’m curious, since this is in keeping with a trend, which is a trend of rising antisemitism and rising antisemitic violence in the world, what you make of it.
Brooks: First, one part of it is not a trend. It is not true that mass shootings are rising in the United States. In 2025, at least with a few weeks left, we have the lowest number of mass shootings in 20 years. So that’s a good sign. I’m not sure how we explain that — maybe just random distribution.
But what is a trend, as you say, is rising antisemitism. I think that’s been true in all of our lives, who are Jews. It’s true in direct experience.
I think the troubling thing — there’s a piece in The Atlantic by Yair Rosenberg quoting a guy named Tim Miller who says, “The more I’m around young people, the more terrified I get.” And there’s a fair bit of evidence that we used to think old people are bigoted. But now there’s more bigotry among young people.
Twenty-five percent of young adults say they have an unfavorable opinion of Jewish people. Twenty percent say that Jews have too much power — and this is not about Israel; they’re not saying Israelis have too much power. They’re saying Jews have too much power.
So somehow they’re in online spaces — and my son tells me about this all the time — that are just rabidly antisemitic, and it becomes a norm. That’s become a norm.
Just about the Bondi Beach shooting, a lot of people — and this is controversial — have said, well, you use the phrase “globalize the intifada,” and that’s what it looks like. And I have to say, I agree with that.
Some words take on historical baggage. If you use the words “states’ rights” when you’re running for office in the South, that has historical baggage. When people say they don’t believe the Holocaust happened, it’s not they didn’t believe big bonfires didn’t happen, they mean a specific genocide.
To me, the word “intifada” has taken on the baggage — I was there for the Second Intifada in Israel, covering it — of using terrorism to advance the Palestinian cause.
Siegel: Yeah.
Brooks: I don’t know why shooting Jews on the beach in Sydney, Australia, advances in any way the Palestinian cause. But some people apparently think it does. So I think people should be careful about that phrase. And so I think that phrase is — people should be careful about that phrase.
Siegel: E.J., have any thoughts?
Dionne: Well, I think that the vast majority of people out there who are critical of Israeli policy after Oct. 7 — who hated Oct. 7; it was an evil act — but really are intensely opposed to how long the war lasted and the damage it did in Gaza, most of the people opposed to that policy are not antisemites. I think it’s very important to make that clear. I know you’re not saying that, but I think it’s important to say that at the outset.
I have to say, I was just very, very upset by this. I was struck by a beautiful piece that Rabbi Sharon Brous wrote in The Times that went up just shortly before we started talking. It is particularly horrible that this happened on Hanukkah, which, as she writes, is the miracle of the persistence of light in dark times, and she does lift up a fruit vendor named Ahmed el Ahmed, who risked his own life to tackle one of the gunmen and probably saved lives on that beach.
Siegel: And was shot, I might add.
Dionne: Yes, and was shot. He survived, but he took an enormous risk. Bigotry and hatred are the enemies of every free society — and antisemitism is one of the oldest and most destructive forms.
I think there is evidence of rising antisemitism, and I think that it needs to be fought. And I think the more we can disentangle it from the politics in the Middle East and just face up to the fact that this is a form of bigotry, the better off we’ll be.
Siegel: Hear, hear.
We have made a practice in these conversations of concluding on a note of joy. Literally three notes of joy, one from each of us. What’s brought some joy into life since last we met? David, you go first.
Brooks: I hope I haven’t talked about the New York Mets in these joy conversations. [Laughs.] Probably not, because they don’t really bring joy.
Dionne: My sports teams are doing really well, but I won’t bring them up.
Siegel: There is joy in being between seasons.
Brooks: Well, they’re dismantling their team, and all the players I love are being traded and let go and the entire fan base is having conniptions. But I find it kind of amusing. I’m always thinking: Well, they’ll figure this one out. So I’m enjoying joy in the tumult.
Siegel: In the tumult. E.J.?
Dionne: So two things, if I may. Real quick. One, I am a sucker for the season we’re in — Christmas trees, menorahs, Nutcracker statues; music from Galway to Sinatra to Taylor Swift. I’m a sucker for it all.
But one thing has brought me great joy the last couple of weeks that I want to shout out. I am a mystery addict. I was one of those kids who loved the Hardy Boys, and some remember my friend Dave Levesque and I learnedly discussing whether “Footprints Under the Window” was better than “The Secret of the Old Mill.” So I’ve continued to read these series. Michael Connelly’s new Lincoln Lawyer novel, “The Proving Ground,” is a wonderful addition to this, and it’s about A.I.
And another group of writers I admire, when they can pull it off, are continuators. Some series are so popular that other writers picked them up. The writer Mike Lupica has picked up Robert B. Parker’s Spenser stories. As a Boston lover, I love Spenser. His “Showdown” and the several others he’s done are really great.
They have brought joy to my life, so season’s greetings to both of them.
Siegel: OK. And I have two experiences of theater about New York City to relay, which brought me joy.
Very different. One was Adam Gopnik’s one-man show. He’s a New Yorker staff writer and essayist, and he gave a performance of his one-man show about life in New York with great emphasis on his misadventures in psychoanalysis, which was both hilarious and very wise.
Then the Shakespeare Theater in Washington, which defines Shakespearean drama very broadly, has a revival of “Guys and Dolls” on right now, which I found delightful. It sent me back to reading more Damon Runyon stories.
It reminded me that here were two people: Damon Runyon, who wrote about gamblers and gangsters around Times Square, always in the present tense, never used the past tense, and Adam Gopnik. They’re two out-of-town guys who came to New York and fell in love with the place. Adam from Montreal and Damon Runyon, some decades back, was born in Manhattan … Kansas. [Laughs.]
So on that note …
Dionne: You lift up the quality and level of every conversation, Robert. That was great.
Siegel: Well, it’s been great seeing you guys once again, and I hope to see you again in a couple of months.
Brooks: See you.
Dionne: See you soon.
Thoughts? Email us at [email protected].
This episode of “The Opinions” was produced by Derek Arthur. It was edited by Alison Bruzek and Kaari Pitkin. Mixing by Pat McCusker. Original music by Carole Sabouraud. Fact-checking by Mary Marge Locker and Kate Sinclair. Audience strategy by Shannon Busta and Kristina Samulewski. The director of Opinion Audio is Annie-Rose Strasser.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected].
Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp and Threads.
The post David Brooks, E.J. Dionne and Robert Siegel Take Stock of 2025 appeared first on New York Times.
