I’m Not Clapping for That

A practical response to the applause lines of the State of the Union.

“Don’t All Politicians Bend the Truth?”

Let’s be honest. I made it through about 45 minutes of the State of the Union before I told my husband I would rather watch a loop of screaming goats than listen to the president repeat lie after lie, followed by applause that sounded like a canned laugh track from a bad 90s sitcom.

The problem is that it wasn’t canned. It was real people cosplaying as representatives of Americans who are hurting financially, medically, and mentally. Instead of offering principled solutions, they played the role of enabler, making sure they didn’t fall onto the president’s bad side.

This morning I skimmed the highlights, looking for tangible solutions to the problems we actually feel in everyday life. I heard that prices are down. That tariffs are somehow filling the treasury. That the past year has been a referendum on standing up to greedy corporations on behalf of the American taxpayer.

In one post-speech commentary, a line surfaced when discussing the lies and the boycotts: Don’t all politicians bend the truth?

That sentence does a lot of work.

It doesn’t deny the lies. It normalizes them. It suggests that accuracy is optional and applause is required.

If everyone bends the truth, no one is accountable. If exaggeration is normal, lies become style. If unity means silence, spectacle becomes a shield.

I’m a dad and former teacher. I don’t watch these moments as theater. I watch them as modeling. What are we teaching our kids about power, truth, and responsibility?

I’m not interested in clapping for lies and spectacle.

So instead of chasing applause lines, I want to talk about the state of my union, the things shaping families like mine.

“We Will Never Touch Medicare.”

While the chamber applauded economic triumph and patriotic symbolism, measles cases in the U.S. have surged to levels that threaten our elimination status.

That is a state of our union.

There were moments in the speech meant to signal hope about fixing our broken healthcare system. Instead, we heard assurances that Medicare would never be harmed and promises to put insurance costs back in the hands of Americans.

The first claim is easily debunked by recent budget proposals. The second is more troubling.

If HHS is shifting vaccination guidance and fewer people are getting vaccinated for a disease with severe long-term consequences, what exactly are we being handed back? A check does not cover lifelong complications. It does not guarantee access to insurance if protections weaken. It does not erase the cost of a preventable diagnosis.

Measles is one of the most contagious viruses on earth. About one in five unvaccinated people require hospitalization. One in twenty children develop pneumonia. Between one and three per thousand die. Years later, some develop a fatal brain disease that appears long after infection. Survivors can experience immune amnesia, leaving them vulnerable to other illnesses for years.

This is not partisan. It is preventable.

Dismantling guardrails while dangling short-term financial relief does not empower families. It shifts risk onto them.

Risk does not stop at the front door of the infected. We share schools, parks, restaurants, grocery stores. That is how public health works.

Recent outbreaks have cost tens of thousands of dollars per case in public health response alone. Large outbreaks reach into the millions. That does not include long-term neurological injury, special education services, missed work, or the strain families carry quietly.

Nearly all recent U.S. cases have occurred among unvaccinated or under-vaccinated populations. These outbreaks are not fate. They are policy choices.

We eradicated measles once. We should not be debating its return in 2026.

You cannot erode vaccine trust and claim to protect families. A one-time economic gesture does not offset lifelong medical consequences.

As a dad, the state of my union includes whether preventable diseases are creeping back into our communities.

“Protecting American Farmers.”

The speech leaned on protecting farmers and strengthening domestic production. That language sounds pro-family and pro-worker.

What goes unmentioned is the cost of that protection and who carries it.

The president has signed an executive order prioritizing domestic production of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, under the Defense Production Act, directing agencies to ensure regulations do not threaten corporate viability.

Read that again: corporate viability. Not consumer safety. Not public health.

Glyphosate has been classified as a probable human carcinogen. High exposure is associated with increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Emerging research links exposure to developmental harms like low birth weight and preterm birth, outcomes with lifelong consequences.

Analyses estimate hundreds of millions of dollars annually in health and environmental damages tied to glyphosate use. Thousands of lawsuits have resulted in multi-billion-dollar settlements related to cancer claims.

When liability narrows, costs do not disappear. They shift.

They move to Medicare. To Medicaid. To private insurers. To families at kitchen tables trying to understand a diagnosis.

If a chemical linked to cancer is deemed essential while its producers are insulated from accountability, we are not eliminating risk. We are relocating it.

Parents are expected to absorb it quietly.

As a parent, the state of my union includes whether corporate immunity becomes public liability and who profits from that shift.

“Standing Up to Greedy Corporations.”

The speech framed the administration as standing up for everyday Americans, protecting families, fighting corporate greed, restoring fairness.

Rhetoric and policy are not always aligned.

We were told Medicaid would always be protected. The 2025 budget reconciliation law includes nearly $990 billion in Medicaid and CHIP cuts over 10 years, the largest in U.S. history. The Congressional Budget Office estimates these changes could increase the number of uninsured Americans by 7.5 million by 2034, with 5.3 million losing coverage due to new work-reporting rules alone.

We were told tariffs are paid by foreign countries and could replace income taxes. Independent analyses show 80 to 94 percent of tariff costs are borne by U.S. importers and consumers, with higher tariffs contributing roughly 0.76 percentage points to overall inflation by late 2025. Courts have ruled portions unconstitutional. Consumers absorbed the cost. Corporations posted record profits. Publicly traded companies are not structured to voluntarily lower prices when their fiduciary duty is to maximize shareholder value, even if input costs decline. The higher price often remains. You are left with the bill.

We were told this administration is standing up to greedy corporations. Consumer protections have been weakened, from rescinding airline cancellation compensation rules to scaling back enforcement capacity at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Oversight narrows. Risk shifts downward.

There is also the contradiction that rarely gets sustained attention.

Publicly, there is talk of banning congressional stock trading, a reform supported by more than 70 percent of Americans in polling. No comprehensive ban has been enacted.

Investigations estimate that since returning to office in 2025, the Trump family has extracted at least $1 to $1.5 billion in cash from crypto ventures, with hundreds of millions generated in the first months alone. That enrichment coincides with an administration-driven push to expand and deregulate crypto markets, described by allies as a Golden Age of Crypto.

If we are serious about corporate accountability, it cannot stop at traditional stock trades while newer financial vehicles tied to political figures expand under lighter oversight.

This is the pattern beneath the applause.

Claim protection. Reduce coverage.
Claim relief. Increase consumer burden.
Claim corporate accountability. Narrow enforcement.
Claim reform. Blur financial lines.
Claim unity. Silence critique.

“The Golden Age of America Has Begun.”

We cannot do everything all the time. People are busy. We are tired. We are juggling work, school, childcare, self care and bills.

Money talks.

The speech keeps circling back to prices, profits, protection, and growth because money moves power.

We have to decide where ours goes. This is not a call for moral perfection, but it is a call for intention.

Look at where you are spending. Consider who benefits from your subscriptions. Notice which corporations are lobbying for deregulation, rolling back equity initiatives, or funding policies that undermine the values you claim to hold.

You do not have to become a monk. You can be selective.

Maybe it means buying from a local shop when you can. Maybe it means pausing before the one-click order. Maybe it means consolidating subscriptions. Maybe it means choosing not to fund companies actively working against the communities you care about.

I stopped shopping at Target over a year ago. It was inconvenient. It was manageable. We still use Amazon sometimes, but less and more intentionally. We look for alternatives first. Spotify was cancelled when they refused to stop running ICE recruitment ads, and Chick-fil-A hasn’t crossed these lips from the second I found out they fund and lobby for anti-LGBTQ policies.

It is not about purity. It is about pressure.

Corporations respond to revenue. Politicians respond to donors. Markets respond to incentives.

If we are serious about protecting families, our money and our votes have to align with that claim.

Have these conversations. Compare notes. Make small shifts. Sustain them.

We do not have to do everything, but we cannot keep doing nothing, or worse, undermining our own survival.

That is the state of our union.