Last Tuesday, controversial President Donald Trump gave his first State of the Union address. For some, it reignited a belief in the current administration, and for others it lacked the unification many felt it needed.

Previous State of the Union addresses haven’t been particularly memorable even though they allow citizens to understand the direction that the government seeks to take the country. It is also a glimpse into how the president has changed after being in office for a full year.

Compared to past speaking engagements, Trump’s demeanor differed from what has been seen in the past: he was subdued, he followed the teleprompter, and he spoke with a very positive tone. Considering the last year in office, maintaining an upbeat tone was necessary to reassure the base of his support. The speech wasn’t as unifying for the Democrats per se, but it gave the impression that bipartisanship was important to a president who has done little to prove that to be true.

The president’s ideas in the address were expected and previously apprehended, leaving Democrats unimpressed. Yes, he addressed opioid addiction and recent tragedies, but for the majority of the speech, Democrats refused to clap for the president. The actions of the Democrats were received as disrespectful and rude, and for the sake of the government this is not the best move to make. However, I also understand why Democrats went to this breadth. Bipartisanship is something that is hard to achieve and it’s not like the Trump administration has been open to amicable conversation. To have the leader of the free world talk down upon you through social media and create hardship for your constituents would deter anyone from wanting to share support.

Besides the controversy between the parties, the speech itself touched on topics that were not surprising: jobs, economy, energy, taxes, infrastructure and, most notably, immigration.

Trump used his impact on the economy as the face of his first year in office; although it is an important component to being a successful president, he has presented statistics that are purely happenstance. Specifically, he stated that both black and Hispanic unemployment rates have been at their lowest ever. This caused some uproar because it felt implied that this was Trump’s doing, but these unemployment rates have been declining since 2011.

Other topics, like energy, Trump addressed in a relatively narrow way.

For example, Trump touted the phrase, “we have ended the war on clean coal…” which is an oxymoron; there really was never a war on coal, and using “clean” to describe a source of energy that has negatively impacted the environment is ironic.

Besides the point, Trump does not care for clean energy. He has never supported it or even addressed it, besides trying to cut it. Our last administration took utilizing clean energy very seriously and, most importantly, acknowledged climate change.  Currently, climate change is not an existing issue for Trump and he even lauds how amazing oil and coal are. Interestingly, Trump remarked that “no one has done this for decades,” referring to petroleum. The way he talked sounded outdated, that using more oil and coal is an achievement for the country and that he is the one who is utilizing this tool that so many have “forgotten” about.

The other sore topic that Trump faces a lot of controversy over is immigration. The immigration stalemate was responsible for the government shutdown two weeks ago and is a large point of contention between the parties. Trump presented his four pillars for immigration: DACA, border patrol, visa lottery, and chain migration. Trump called for compromise between the parties for the immigration crisis to be solved, but the demands that Trump makes don’t seem to include any compromises on his part. It feels as if he is talking about bipartisanship but has no intention to compromise.

The citizenship path that he proposed would take up to 12 years and would cover triple the amount of Dreamers that Obama’s administration currently does. Trump doesn’t refer to these immigrant children as Dreamers until the end, as if he was trying to push aside the title that these recipients are known by.  He also sought to assure the nation that he cares for them, but it’s hard to believe that when he talks about deporting so many of them. It would have been better to not fake sympathy for these people.

When the president talks about “stricter border patrol,” he really means he wants a wall. The source of funding for this wall is still up in the air, as well as the support from his Military Chief of Staff John Kelly and some of his fellow cabinet members, but it is a promise he made.

The visa lottery and chain migration were the last things that he touched on. He has expressed very strong views about these two pieces of border control and the statements he made during the speech were misleading. Saying that you can let “virtually an unlimited number of distant relatives” into the country, which is wrong.  A 1988 act from the General Accounting Office created a waiting list for people to come into the country through the practice of chain migration, which can potentially take up to 25 years because of backlog. It should also be noted that you can only bring in close family on a visa, excluding grandparents. Green cards are different, and spouses can be brought into the country within 90 days, but that isn’t bringing in mass amounts of people.

A final note on immigration: Trump called “Americans dreamers, too” which really rubbed some people the wrong way, and I agree. In the literal sense of the word, American citizens dreamt this country to be free, equal, and democratic and it has become such a powerful influence on a global scale. But “Dreamers” is a term associated with immigrants who were brought here technically illegally and found a home in America. Extending this title that was solely based on the issues of immigrant children felt unnecessary, but I understand why he said this. Trump’s campaign was focused on strengthening border security and it was important for him to bring together the people he wants to provide a path for and the current citizens of the country.

Through all of this, Trump was able to share his beliefs and give real life examples of his strong stances through the stories of others. They were incredibly meaningful. The stories ranged from families who lost their daughters to gang violence, to an ICE border agent whose life was threatened, to a man who escaped North Korea on crutches after going through a brutal leg amputation. These stories were the highlight of his speech; it made Trump seem far more empathetic, which is something he has struggled with especially in the eyes of Democrats. This emotion gave him a more sincere and purposeful tone that seemed to resonate with a wider audience than before. State of the Unions are typically littered with stories about amazing people in this country; having American citizens get their stories told through the government makes the country feel more based in the people, no matter the tragedy.

Trump’s State of the Union had notable aspects to it, and was interesting for those who are deeply interested in politics to see Congress’s and Trump’s projections for the future.