Donald Trump estranged their family. Talking about him brought them back together.
The 44-year-old from Flower Mound, Texas, respectfully disagreed with her mother's conservative views. But they could always set aside their political differences to connect.
That changed in 2016.
Haley's parents, Mary Lou and Bob Kultgen, became avid supporters of President Donald Trump and his call to 'Make America Great Again.' Haley and her brother, Chad Kultgen, disagreed. Vehemently.
The political tension reached its peak during the pandemic. Every conversation Haley and Chad had with their parents turned into a fight over politics. They blocked each other on social media. Haley went from speaking on the phone with her mother every day to going months without talking.
'I always considered my mom one of my best friends... It was sad,' Haley said. 'It was a hard time. I thought I might not be able to talk to my parents again.'
'It was ripping my heart out,' said Mary Lou, 70, who lives in Edmond, Oklahoma.
Their situation was not unlike many family dynamics in the U.S. They later found a way to repair theirs.
A survey conducted before the 2024 presidential election found that 1 in 5 Americans had become estranged from a family member, blocked a family member on social media or skipped a family event due to disagreements over controversial topics such as politics, according to the American Psychiatric Association.
'Our current environment has become increasingly polarized,' APA CEO and medical director Dr. Marketa Wills said in October 2024. 'Some of us will find ourselves having heated conversations and disagreements on sensitive issues, even with the people we are close to. Sometimes these discussions represent healthy debate, and other times they may cross the line into incivility if emotions flare.'
In 2022, Chad decided he had had enough. He didn't know how much time he had left with his parents and he didn't want to spend those remaining years estranged. If the only way he could speak to his parents was fighting over politics, he said, then bring it on.
'The only time we could lock in was by talking politics,' said Chad, 44, who lives in Los Angeles. 'I thought why not do this as a podcast because it would regiment the need for us to get together every week for one hour.'
Read up: Gen Z men, women have a deep political divide. It's made dating a nightmare
He approached Haley with the idea. She said to herself, 'We have nothing to lose, so why not?'
The podcast, dubbed 'The Necessary Conversation Podcast,' ended up saving the family.
Bickering on the podcast for an hour every Sunday allowed them to focus on other things outside of the show. If anyone mentioned politics during a family gathering or casual phone call, Chad encouraged them to 'save it for the podcast," which he called their "therapy."
'That's our one hour for yipping and fighting and going after each other,' Mary Lou said. 'The podcast is only a sliver of our real lives and what we mean to each other.'
In case you missed: What do moms really want for Mother's Day? We need to talk about it.
Now, the siblings visit their parents' barn in Oklahoma and attend Kansas State University football games together. Haley even helped her father during his recovery from a second hip surgery.
They still don't agree on politics, but they've learned to listen to one another and sympathize. Chad hopes he can show other families that it's possible to repair familial relationships despite political differences.
"My relationship with my parents was more important than my relationship wth Donald Trump," he said.
Mary Lou agreed. "Politics is not worth losing family members over or losing the love for your family," she said. "It's just not worth it."
Adrianna Rodriguez can be reached at adrodriguez@usatoday.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
24 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Stanford preserves legacy admissions by pulling out of Cal Grant aid program
With three weeks to go before California's ban on legacy admissions takes effect at private universities that receive state funding, Stanford has made a stunning decision: To preserve that perk, it's pulling out of the Cal Grant program that benefits hundreds of low-income students at the pricey campus. By declining Cal Grants, Stanford can continue giving admissions preference to hundreds of students who are related to alumni or whose relatives have given money to the university. The statewide ban on such legacy and donor-driven admissions takes effect Sept. 1 under Assembly Bill 1780, which was signed into law last year. Stanford officials say they will cover the canceled aid with university money, and that it will cost just $4 million a year. 'The university will continue to study the consideration of legacy status in admissions and opt out of state financial aid funding in order to comply with recent California legislation,' university officials said in a statement posted on their website over the summer. The statement noted that such admits need to be academically qualified to be considered. 'I was genuinely shocked to see Stanford make this decision. I was surprised that Stanford decided that they would rather put the thumb on the scale for the richest students than take Cal Grant money,' said James Murphy, director of postsecondary policy at Education Reform Now, a think tank that opposes legacy admissions. Stanford is one of six California private schools that last year reported giving preferential admissions to the children of alumni or wealthy donors. Stanford said it admitted 295 students this way in fall 2023, or 13.6% of all undergraduates admitted that year. The other private schools that relied on the practice were Santa Clara University, the University of Southern California, Northeastern University Oakland (formerly Mills College), Claremont McKenna College and Harvey Mudd College. None has said it was pulling out of the Cal Grant program. A wave of opposition to legacy and donor admissions emerged after the 2019 nationwide admissions bribery scandal known as Varsity Blues, in which it was revealed that wealthy parents, including celebrities, had cheated to get their children into Stanford, the University of Southern California, UCLA, UC Berkeley and other prestigious schools across the country. Opposition to legacy admissions strengthened in 2023, after the U.S. Supreme Court outlawed affirmative action in higher education. That ruling made it illegal for universities across the country to consider the race of applicants in admissions decisions. Then-Assemblymember Phil Ting, D-S.F., who last year authored California's ban on legacy admissions, called the practice 'affirmative action for the wealthiest Americans.' Another critic, Stanford alumnus Ryan Cieslikowski, who has pushed for similar bans across the country, said Tuesday that 'by clinging to legacy preferences,' the university is sending the message that 'the children of wealthy alumni and donors come first.' Stanford says that no one who would have received state aid will be able to tell the difference, and they need to take no action. 'Stanford will substitute university scholarship funding for California student financial assistance programs, including the Cal Grant program,' the university told the Chronicle in an email Tuesday. Stanford already pays $486 million a year to fully cover the $67,731 tuition plus room and board for students from families with annual income of less than $100,000. Pulling out of the state aid program will cost the university about $4 million a year to make up the difference, campus officials said Tuesday, noting that about 440 Stanford undergraduates and 60 graduate students received Cal Grants or Golden State Teacher Grants last year. This year's maximum Cal Grant for private school attendance is $9,708. Yet the decision to spend more to preserve legacy and donor admissions comes as Stanford is preparing to permanently lay off or eliminate 363 staff jobs in October to reduce its budget by an unspecified amount in the face or rising costs driven in part by federal policy changes. This includes a new 8% tax on its endowment — up from 1.4% — that is expected to cost Stanford $200 million this year.
NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
U.S. national debt reaches a record $37 trillion, the Treasury Department reports
The U.S. government's gross national debt has surpassed $37 trillion, a record number that highlights the accelerating debt on America's balance sheet and increased cost pressures on taxpayers. The $37 trillion update is found in the latest Treasury Department report issued Tuesday which logs the nation's daily finances. The national debt eclipsed $37 trillion years sooner than pre-pandemic projections. The Congressional Budget Office's January 2020 projections had gross federal debt eclipsing $37 trillion after fiscal year 2030. But the debt grew faster than expected because of a multi-year COVID-19 pandemic starting in 2020 that shut down much of the U.S. economy, where the federal government borrowed heavily under then-President Donald Trump and former President Joe Biden to stabilize the national economy and support a recovery. And now, more government spending has been approved after Trump signed into law Republicans' tax cut and spending legislation earlier this year. The law set to add $4.1 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates. Chair and CEO of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, Michael Peterson said in a statement that government borrowing puts upward pressure on interest rates, 'adding costs for everyone and reducing private sector investment. Within the federal budget, the debt crowds out important priorities and creates a damaging cycle of more borrowing, more interest costs, and even more borrowing.' Wendy Edelberg, a senior fellow in Economic Studies at the Brookings Institution said Congress has a major role in setting in motion spending and revenue policy and the result of the Republicans' tax law 'means that we're going to borrow a lot over the course of 2026, we're going to borrow a lot over the course of 2027, and it's just going to keep going.' The Government Accountability Office outlines some of the impacts of rising government debt on Americans — including higher borrowing costs for things like mortgages and cars, lower wages from businesses having less money available to invest, and more expensive goods and services. Peterson points out how the trillion-dollar milestones are 'piling up at a rapid rate.' The U.S. hit $34 trillion in debt in January 2024, $35 trillion in July 2024 and $36 trillion in November 2024. 'We are now adding a trillion more to the national debt every 5 months,' Peterson said. 'That's more than twice as fast as the average rate over the last 25 years.' The Joint Economic Committee estimates at the current average daily rate of growth an increase of another trillion dollars to the debt would be reached in approximately 173 days. Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said in a statement that 'hopefully this milestone is enough to wake up policymakers to the reality that we need to do something, and we need to do it quickly.'
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
The new politics of Israel
GENERATION GAP — The questions were simple enough. Would you have voted to oppose sending weapons to Israel (as more than half of Senate Democrats recently did)? How do you think the next administration should handle our relationship with Israel? Do you think it's time to recognize a Palestinian state? But Pete Buttigieg, a top 2028 Democratic presidential prospect who was queried on Pod Save America on Sunday, still dodged them. His responses, in which he discussed a two-state solution and opposition to Trump, elicited an angry and dismissive response online, in particular from progressives. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), himself a potential 2028 candidate, posted in response on X 'we need moral clarity, not status quo.' Ben Rhodes, a former deputy national security adviser to President Barack Obama, said, 'Pete is a smart guy, but I have absolutely no idea what he thinks based on these answers.' The frustration with (and mockery of) Buttigieg's answers online lays bare the degree to which perceptions about Israel have changed over the past two years, and how America's relationship with Israel is set to become a more animating factor than ever in Democratic primaries in 2026 and 2028. Buttigieg has been roundly praised for his foray into new media and 'bro podcasts,' platforms where the party has largely been missing in action in recent years. But the viral moment on Israel from his Pod Save America interview — an otherwise safe space for Democrats — makes clear that even the party's strongest communicators must now contend with a newly reshaped party landscape on the issue of the war in Gaza. In his questions, podcast host Jon Favreau pointed directly to the shift within the party — at the end of July, the majority of Senate Democrats voted in favor of two bills that would block the sale of automatic weapons to Israel and would block the sale of $675 million in munition kits and bombs. Just a few months earlier, in April, only 15 Democrats voted to block similar transfers. It's a dramatic departure from the past, when the default party position was nearly unqualified support for Israel and those who broke with that stance — typically House progressives — were in a distinct minority. But it's a reflection of the new Democratic politics surrounding Israel, a directional change that has taken place with remarkable velocity since Hamas' brutal attack in October 2023. In the aftermath of that tragedy, exactly half of Americans (50 percent) approved of Israel's military action in Gaza, compared to 45 percent who disapproved. But since then support has eroded significantly — in a July Gallup poll, just 32 percent approved of the military action, the lowest point since Gallup first asked the question in November 2023. While support for Israel remains stable (and high) among Republicans, it has cratered among Democrats — just 8 percent of Democrats approve of Israel's military action in Gaza, down from 36 percent just after the attacks. The bottom has fallen out of conservative Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's popularity as well. While Netanyahu remains popular among Republicans, among Democrats his favorability rating has plummeted to just 9 percent. That's only slightly higher than President Donald Trump's approval ratings among Democrats. A June Quinnipiac University poll found something similar. When asked whether their sympathies lie more with the Israelis or more with the Palestinians based on what they know about the situation in the Middle East, just 12 percent of Democrats said the Israelis, while 60 percent said the Palestinians. Twenty-nine percent had no opinion. These rock-bottom levels of support explain the subtle, but increasingly noticeable, recalibrations that are taking place among Democratic candidates and elected officials. It reveals that traditional solid support for Israel is no longer politically sustainable in a restive party where the energy is on the left and among its youngest members — the two quarters where sympathy for Palestinians and support for an independent Palestinian state is highest. That's a change even from 2024, the first post-terror attack American election, when Israel policy was one of the defining features of House campaigns and the Democratic presidential primary. Back then, pro-Israel advocacy groups helped knock off two progressive incumbents who were critical of Israel in primaries, and President Joe Biden continued to show support for Israel's military campaign against Hamas fighters even in the face of an energetic 'uncommitted' effort designed to protest his policies. At the time, support for Israel's military action among Democrats was in the mid-20 percent range, according to Gallup. But in the upcoming 2026 primary season, if current party sentiment holds, the level of support will be in single digits. And there isn't much reason to expect it will return to prior levels anytime soon since the primary season will unfold on the heels of reports of mass starvation in Gaza, rising international anger toward Israel's restrictions on aid and a renewed Gaza offensive. The effects of that low level of support for Israel within the party could be wide-ranging. It could encourage protest candidates who tie it into their message of generational change. It will inevitably reshape the stances of the 2028 presidential primary field, not to mention recharge the party platform fight at the 2028 Democratic National Convention. What it suggests is a new normal going forward, especially because of the generational dimension to the debate. A 2024 Pew Research poll found that among Americans aged 65 and older, 47 percent said their sympathies lie entirely or mostly with the Israeli people, while just 9 percent sympathized entirely or mostly with the Palestinians. The numbers were almost flipped with younger voters, however. One-third of adults under 30 said their sympathies were either entirely or mostly with the Palestinian people, compared to just 14 percent who said their sympathies lie entirely or mostly with the Israeli people. They have an entirely different outlook than older Americans, whose historical frame of reference includes the Holocaust, the founding of the state of Israel, the Six Day War, the Munich Olympics, the Yom Kippur War, and other events. Young Democrats have only known a world with Netanyahu at the head of Israel's government. They have had a steady diet of images of dead Palestinians and starving children in Gaza on social media. Against that backdrop, as Buttigieg found out this week, the recycled rhetoric of the past, in the absence of a clear stand, is no longer cutting it in his party. Welcome to POLITICO Nightly. Reach out with news, tips and ideas at nightly@ Or contact tonight's authors at cmahtesian@ and cmchugh@ or on X (formerly known as Twitter) at @PoliticoCharlie and @calder_mchugh. What'd I Miss? — 'Trusting Trump's instincts': White House sets modest expectations ahead of Putin summit: White House officials are tempering expectations ahead of Friday's summit between Presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, casting it as a step toward a peaceful solution to the Ukraine war and avoiding promises of a ceasefire or any other type of grand bargain. The goal, a White House official said, is for Trump to simply take the measure of Putin, find out if the Russian leader is serious and work toward a trilateral meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. — Trump BLS pick hints at halting monthly jobs report: President Donald Trump's pick to lead the Bureau of Labor Statistics is floating the idea of suspending the monthly jobs report in favor of less-frequent quarterly data published by the statistical agency. E.J. Antoni said that BLS should halt issuing the reports — which are widely relied upon by economists, the Federal Reserve, Wall Street and other businesses to gauge the state of the economy in close to real time — until its methods can be improved to limit subsequent revisions. — Lula, Trump at a standstill on tariffs: President Donald Trump has used tariffs to pressure world leaders on a host of non-trade issues. Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva is one of the few who isn't budging. The left-wing South American president has taken a forceful response to the 50 percent tariffs Trump announced in July, last week calling on India, China and other emerging economies to unite against the U.S. levies. Lula, as Brazil's president is known, called the tariffs 'unacceptable blackmail' and filed a complaint with the World Trade Organization, after Trump tied the levies in part to the prosecution of former Brazilian president and far-right Trump acolyte Jair Bolsonaro. Unlike countries that have caved to Trump's demands on digital services taxes or defense spending, Trump has tied tariffs so large they are effectively sanctions to an issue Lula's government has made clear it won't negotiate on. — Paxton urges Texas judge to jail Beto O'Rourke over fundraising related to redistricting fight: Attorney General Ken Paxton has asked a Texas district court judge to jail former Rep. Beto O'Rourke over his fundraising pitches connected to the state's intensifying redistricting battle. Paxton's request accused the Texas Democrat of violating a court order that the judge, Tarrant County's Megan Fahey, issued last week that barred fundraising by O'Rourke and his nonprofit Powered by People intended to bankroll the efforts by Texas Democratic lawmakers to derail the redistricting effort. In support of his claim, he highlighted a remark O'Rourke made at a Saturday rally — a day after Fahey's order — saying 'there are no refs in this game. Fuck the rules.' But an attorney for O'Rourke says Paxton's characterization of O'Rourke's remark was an 'outright lie.' — Judge orders ICE to stop forcing detainees to sleep on dirty concrete floors: A federal judge ordered the Trump administration today to improve the conditions for ICE detainees in Manhattan after a lawsuit filed by a Peruvian immigrant complained of cramped and unsanitary holding cells. U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan ordered officials by Aug. 26 to provide more spacious accommodations that are equipped with a bedding mat for each detainee held overnight, have hygiene supplies and are cleaned 'thoroughly' at least three times a day. Kaplan, a Clinton appointee, also ordered officials to allow detainees private phone calls with their lawyers within 24 hours of being detained and to give them a printed notice of their rights within one hour of being placed in a holding room. AROUND THE WORLD ZELENSKYY'S NON-NEGOTIABLES — Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said he will not give the Donbas region to Russia as part of a ceasefire deal, days ahead of Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin's meeting in Alaska. The U.S. and Russian presidents are set to meet Friday to discuss a truce in the Ukraine war, which Trump said would require some exchange of territories. 'We will not leave Donbas. We cannot do this. Donbas for the Russians is a springboard for a future new offensive,' Zelenskyy told journalists in Kyiv today. TAKING THE LEAD — The far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) has become the most popular party in the country, according to a striking new poll published today. If a national election were now held, 26 percent of Germans would vote for the AfD, according to a poll carried out by the Forsa Institute for Social Research and Statistical Analysis. That result puts the far-right party ahead of German Chancellor Friedrich Merz's mainstream conservative bloc, which slid to second with 24 percent support in the poll. With the far-right National Rally already leading clearly in France, the bombshell German survey is likely to fuel unease among mainstream leaders across Europe. Right-wing populist parties have performed strongly in elections in recent years from Poland to Romania, and Portugal to the Netherlands. Nightly Number RADAR SWEEP YOUR CLOTHES' SECOND LIFE — If you've ever dropped a bag of clothes in a donation bin, chances are it ended up in Ghana, one of the world's biggest importer of used clothing. Every week, 15 million pieces of secondhand clothing arrived at the Kantamanto market in Accra where traders try to sell them to locals and sellers from around West Africa. As new clothing sales have quadrupled in the last 20 years, nonprofits in Ghana are finding innovative ways to upcycle clothing waste before they are dumped in landfills. Charlie Campbell reports for TIME. Parting Image Jacqueline Munis contributed to this newsletter. Did someone forward this email to you? Sign up here.
