Philippa Kaur

In an unprecedented step, the Department of Defense announced online on Nov. 24, 2025, that it was reviewing statements by U.S. Sen. Mark Kelly, a Democrat, who is a retired Navy captain, decorated combat veteran and former NASA astronaut.

Kelly and five other members of Congress with military or intelligence backgrounds told members of the armed forces “You can refuse illegal orders” in a video released on Nov. 18, reiterating oaths that members of the military and the intelligence community swear to uphold and defend the Constitution. The legislators said they acted in response to concerns expressed by troops currently serving on active duty.

President Donald Trump called the video “seditious behavior, punishable by death.”

Retired senior officers like Kelly can be recalled to duty at any time, which would make it possible for the Pentagon to put Kelly on trial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, although the Defense Department announcement did not specify possible charges. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth wrote online that “Kelly’s conduct brings discredit upon the armed forces and will be addressed appropriately.”

This threat to punish Kelly is just the latest move by the Trump administration against perceived enemies at home. By branding critics and opponents as disloyal, traitorous or worse, Trump and his supporters are resurrecting a playbook that hearkens back to Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s crusade against people he portrayed as domestic threats to the U.S. in the 1950s.

As a historian who studies national security and the Cold War era, I know that McCarthyism wrought devastating social and cultural harm across our nation. In my view, repeating what I believe constitutes social and political fratricide could be just as harmful today, perhaps even more so.

Targeting homegrown enemies

In the late 1940s and early 1950s, many Americans believed the United States was a nation under siege. Despite their victory in World War II, Americans saw a dangerous world confronting them.

The communist-run Soviet Union held Eastern Europe in an iron grip. In 1949, Mao Zedong’s communist troops triumphed in the bloody Chinese civil war. One year later, the Korean peninsula descended into full-scale conflict, raising the prospect of World War III – a frightening possibility in the atomic era.

Anti-communist zealots in the U.S., most notably Wisconsin Republican Sen. McCarthy, argued that treasonous Americans were weakening the nation at home. During a February 1950 speech in Wheeling, West Virginia, McCarthy asserted that “the traitorous actions of those who have been treated so well by this nation” were undermining the United States during its “final, all-out battle” against communism.

When communist forces toppled China’s government, critics such as political activist Freda Utley lambasted President Harry Truman’s administration for what they cast as its timidity, blundering and, worse, “treason in high places.” Conflating foreign and domestic threats, McCarthy claimed without evidence that homegrown enemies “within our borders have been more responsible for the success of communism abroad than Soviet Russia.”

From 1950 through 1954, Sen. Joseph McCarthy, a Wisconsin Republican, used his role as chair of two powerful Senate committees to identify and accuse people he thought were Communist sympathizers. Many of those accused lost their jobs even when there was little or no evidence to support the accusations.

As ostensible proof, the senator pointed to American lives being lost in Korea and argued that it was possible to “fully fight a war abroad and at the same time … dispose of the traitorous filth and the Red vermin which have accumulated at home.”

Political opponents might disparage McCarthy for his “dishonest and cowardly use of fractional fact and innuendo,” but the Wisconsinite knew how to play to the press. Time and again, McCarthy would bombastically lash out against his critics as he did with columnist Drew Pearson, calling him “an unprincipled liar,” “a fake” and the owner of a “twisted perverted mentality.”

While McCarthy focused on allegedly disloyal government officials and media journalists, other self-pronounced protectors of the nation sought to warn naive members of the public. Defense Department pamphlets like “Know Your Communist Enemy” alerted Americans against being duped by Communist Party members skilled in deception and manipulation.

Virulent anti-communists denounced what they viewed as inherent weaknesses of postwar American society, with a clearly political bent. Republicans asserted that cowardly, effeminate liberals were weakening the nation’s defense by minimizing threats both home and abroad.

Censure and worse

In such an anxiety-ridden environment, “red-baiting” – discrediting political opponents by linking them to communism – spread across the country, leaving a trail of wrecked lives. From teachers to public officials, anyone deemed un-American by McCarthyites faced public censure, loss of employment or even imprisonment.

Under the 1940 Smith Act, which criminalized promoting the overthrow of the U.S. government, hundreds of Americans were prosecuted during the Cold War simply for having been members of the Communist Party of the United States. The act also authorized the “deportation of aliens,” reflecting fears that communist ideas had seeped into nearly all facets of American society.

The 1950 Internal Security Act, widely known as the McCarran Act, further emphasized existential threats from within. “Disloyal aliens,” a term the law left purposefully vague, could have their citizenship revoked. Communist Party members were required to register with the government, a step that made them susceptible to prosecution under the Smith Act.

Immigrants could be detained or deported if the president declared an “internal security emergency.” Advocates called this policy “preventive detention,” while critics derided the act as a “Concentration Camp Law,” in the words of historian Masumi Izumi.

Scapegoating outsiders

The scaremongering wasn’t just about people’s political views: Vulnerable groups, such as gay people, were also targeted. McCarthy warned of links between “communists and queers,” asserting that “sexual perverts” had infested the U.S. government, especially the State Department, and posed “dangerous security risks.” Closeted gay or lesbian employees, the argument went, were vulnerable to blackmail by foreign governments.

Fearmongering also took on a decidedly racist tone. South Carolina Governor George Bell Timmerman, Jr., for instance, argued in 1957 that enforcing “Negro voting rights” would promote the “cause of communism.”

Three years later, a comic book titled “The Red Iceberg” insinuated that communists were exploiting the “tragic plight” of Black families and that the NAACP, a leading U.S. civil rights advocacy group, had been infiltrated by the Kremlin. Conservatives like Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater criticized the growing practice of using federal power to enforce civil rights, calling it communist-style social engineering.

In an interview on Oct. 13, 2024, then-candidate Donald Trump described Democratic Party rivals as ‘the enemy from within’ and suggested using the armed forces against ‘radical left lunatics’ on Election Day.

A new McCarthyism

While it’s never simple to draw neat historical parallels from past eras to the present, it appears McCarthy-like actions are recurring widely today. During the Red Scare, the focus was on alleged communists. Today, the focus is on straightforward dissent. Critics, both past and present, of President Donald Trump’s actions and policies are being targeted.

At the national level, Trump has called for using military force against “the enemy from within.” On Sept. 30, 2025, Trump told hundreds of generals and admirals who had been called to Quantico, Virginia, from posts around the world that the National Guard should view America’s “dangerous cities as training grounds.”

The Trump administration is making expansive use of the McCarran Act to crack down on immigrants in U.S. cities. White House adviser Stephen Miller has proposed suspending the constitutionally protected writ of habeas corpus, which entitles prisoners to challenge their detentions in court, in order to deport “illegal aliens,” alleging that the U.S. is “under invasion.”

In my home state of Texas, political fearmongering has taken on an equally McCarthyesque tone, with the Legislature directing the State Board of Education to adopt mandatory instruction on “atrocities attributable to communist regimes.”

Perhaps it is unsurprising, then, that right-wing activist Laura Loomer has unapologetically called for “making McCarthy great again.”

Disagreement is democratic

The history of McCarthyism shows where this kind of action can lead. Charging political opponents with treason and calling the media an “enemy of the people,” all without evidence, undercuts democratic principles.

These actions cast certain groups as different and dehumanize them. Portraying political rivals as existential threats, simply for disagreeing with their fellow citizens or political leaders, promotes forced consensus. This diminishes debate and can lead to bad policies.

Americans live in an insecure world today, but as I see it, demonizing enemies won’t make the United States a safer place. Instead, it only will lead to the kind of harm that was brought to pass by the very worst tendencies of McCarthyism. More

Everyone knew that once Congress passed legislation requiring the Justice Department to release all the Jeffrey Epstein files, US President Donald Trump would go on a tear to “flood the zone” with other distractions so he could command the agenda.

And that’s exactly what he did. Over the next four days, Trump met with FIFA President Gianni Infantino in the Oval Office to announce expedited visas for fans at next year’s World Cup (though, pointedly, not for all).

He hosted Saudi Arabia Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman with an effusive news conference, where he attacked a journalist for asking a “horrible, insubordinate” question about the killing and dismemberment of a journalist at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in 2018. The crown prince was then feted at a White House state dinner with tech giants from Apple to Nvidia.

Trump also lashed out at his political opponents with dangerous, vengeful rhetoric that was shocking, even by his standards.

On Thursday, the president posted on Truth Social to trash a video produced by six Democratic members of Congress, who had all served in the military or intelligence services. They accused the Trump administration of attempting to pit the military and intelligence services against the American people. In a direct address to military and intelligence leaders, they said:

Our laws are clear: You can refuse illegal orders; you must refuse illegal orders. No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution.

Trump went ballistic. He called the message “seditious behaviour at the highest level” and said the Democratic lawmakers should be punished “by death”.

By the end of the week, the Epstein affair had faded to the background – by design.

Dire poll numbers

So, what’s going on behind the scenes that’s driving this vitriol? Put simply, Trump is under pressure like at no other time in his second term.

For one, his poll numbers – and those of the Republicans – have hit rock bottom.

A Fox News poll last week had Trump’s favourable rating at just 40% – even worse than Joe Biden’s rating at the same point in his presidency. And three quarters of respondents viewed the economy negatively.

Moreover, the Democrats’ sweep in elections in Virginia and New Jersey on November 5 has given them a major boost ahead of next November’s midterm elections that could determine the control of Congress.

Another poll has the Democrats up 14% over Republicans when respondents were asked who they would vote for if the election was held today. This is the largest gap since 2017, which presaged the Democrats taking back control of the House of Representatives in 2018.

The driver in all this is a growing lack of confidence in Trump’s ability to resolve the affordability crisis in food, rent, insurance, health care and other basic items. Trump’s message that the US economy is the “hottest” on the planet is not resonating with voters.

As was obvious during the US government shutdown, Trump has no interest in meeting with Democrats, much less negotiating with them. He wants to destroy them. And, at a time of heightened political violence, he’s publicly saying he wants some of them executed.

In Trump’s mind, there are almost no limits to his exercise of power. He has deployed the National Guard to patrol US cities, which a judge last week said was illegal, and he has ordered the killings of people in small boats in the Caribbean. He does not tolerate dissent to his exercise of power as commander in chief.

That is precisely the fear the Democrats expressed in their message last week – that the military could potentially be used against American citizens, particularly if Trump feels his power is starting to weaken.

Cracks emerging in Trump’s loyalist base

The other thing that has Trump worried is his stranglehold over the Republican Party. There are signs this may be starting to crack. And given his second term has been boosted by loyalists – both in the party and in his appointments – this could be a cause of significant concern for the president.

Marjorie Taylor Greene is a case in point. For a decade, the Georgia congresswoman has been one of the most vocal Trump and MAGA cheerleaders. But this year, she has increasingly spoken out against Trump for reneging on his commitment to put “America first” with all his foreign policy focus and travel overseas.

Her break with Trump over the Epstein files was the last straw. In recent days, he called her “Marjorie Traitor Greene” and threatened to back a candidate to challenge her in a Republican primary next year.

On Friday, Greene announced she would resign from Congress. She said what she stood for “should not result in me being called a traitor and threatened by the president of the United States.”

Trump has made clear his intention to destroy more of his enemies and others who stand in his way. This is what Trump feels he must do to survive.

But how long Trump manages to ward off other Republican challenges remains to be seen, especially if Republicans up for election next year become really worried about their chances. They could start creating distance between their priorities and how Trump is preforming as president.

With all this pressure mounting on Trump – not to mention a looming showdown with some Republicans over his Ukraine peace plan – he may be heading for a winter of discontent. More

In the lead-up to the much-discussed social media ban taking effect, Australian eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant is often in the headlines.

For all the attention she’s been getting, Inman Grant probably didn’t expect any of it to come from a foreign government committee, calling her to answer for a so-called “censorship regime”.

But the US House Committee on the Judiciary has asked her to appear before it to testify about laws governing the internet.

Chair of the committee, Republican Jim Jordan, was blunt in his request. In a letter to the commissioner, he wrote:

as a primary enforcer of Australia’s OSA [Online Safety Act] and noted zealot for global take-downs, you are uniquely positioned to provide information about the law’s free speech implications […]

While it seems an unusual move, censorship has grown into a hot-button issue in the United States. Inman Grant finds herself at the centre of a perfect storm of rhetoric, politicking and fierce American individualism.

Does she have to testify?

The committee has no jurisdiction over the activities of the Australian government. Indeed, it does not even have jurisdiction over US-Australian diplomatic relations, which are the provenance of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

The Judiciary Committee can call anyone it wants to come and testify at a hearing, but potential witnesses outside the US cannot be compelled to do so. This means Inman Grant can decide whether she wants to appear.

Jordan, the committee’s chair, is a member of the House Freedom Caucus: a formal group of around 45 mostly libertarian conservatives in the Republican Party in the House.

The caucus does not necessarily represent the views of most Republicans. It has often been in conflict with House Republican leadership.

Mounting cynicism

The issue of internet censorship is fraught in US politics. At the height of the COVID pandemic, this issue became even more heated and controversial.

Many Americans were very upset to learn the Biden administration worked with Facebook to censor posts about the pandemic. Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg, who testified before the Judiciary Committee about this issue last year, has vowed his company would never do so again.

On his first full day in office this year, President Donald Trump signed an executive order banning government from censoring social media.

The backlash from Americans against any kind of censorship has at least two sources. The first the generalised resistance to taking any kind of direction from the government.

Americans don’t want to be told “no” by their government. Whether it’s guns, drugs, gambling, abortion, gay marriage or even seatbelts, Americans don’t want to be told what to do (although after a few years of clever advocacy, Americans accepted the need to wear seatbelts).

The idea that their own government would censor their social media posts – no matter how wrong that post might be on the facts or how counterproductive to the public interest – is anathema to many Americans.

Second, the backlash against the US government, specifically for actions taken during the COVID pandemic, has been fairly broad. Americans have criticised mask mandates, social distancing, working from home, and other measures taken to reduce exposure to the coronavirus.

Republican Congressman Jim Jordan chairs the House Judiciary Committee.
Alex Brandon/AP

While there certainly has been a lot of disinformation regarding COVID, the policies of and information from the US government itself during the pandemic have been widely criticised as ineffective or wrong-headed.

The confusing politics and fraught policies from the pandemic era have made many Americans – particularly represented by the Freedom Caucus – much more sceptical of government actions generally.

It’s against this backdrop that politicians like Jordan cast a wide net in the quest against censorship, real and imagined.

Ghosts of disputes past

Of course, many of the large social media platforms and internet technology companies are American (X, Meta, Google and Amazon, among others).

The people who run these companies have generally made a point of getting along with Trump and his administration. They are often seen funding his initiatives and supporting his policies.

No doubt they also would have done this if Kamala Harris had won the presidency.

Because VPN (virtual private network) technology can allow individual users to escape national restrictions, some foreign governments have asked American companies to take down all posts globally on a certain topic.

This is what Inman Grant did in the commission’s case against X, owned by former Trump administration figurehead Elon Musk. The commission wanted video of Wakeley church stabbing in Sydney removed everywhere, not just in Australia. eSafety ultimately dropped the case in 2024.

Read more:
Elon Musk vs Australia: global content take-down orders can harm the internet if adopted widely

Jordan cites this case in his letter to the commissioner. It clearly struck a sour note.

These sorts of requests, if granted, affect Americans because they wouldn’t have access to those posts. Libertarians in particular do not react well to this possibility, and that means it won’t land well with Congress.

The position of the House Judiciary Committee does not represent American foreign policy. Jordan, however, is an influential member of Congress and generally friendly with Trump. Jordan’s advocacy may come to impact Trump’s foreign policy, but for the time being, Inman Grant doesn’t have too much to worry about. More

The resounding victories in recent elections by Democrats Zohran Mamdani in New York, Abigail Spanberger in Virginia and Mikie Sherrill in New Jersey has reinvigorated the party after a dismal year since Donald Trump became president.

The victories were not a mandate for a sharp ideological shift to the left. This may be true for Mamdani, but it is not for Spanberger and Sherrill, since both are mainstream centrist Democrats. The main reason for the victories can be seen in the chart below.

Trends in presidential job approval and Donald Trump’s handling of the economy 2025:

Paul Whiteley/YouGov, Author provided (no reuse)

The data comes from successive polls in the United States conducted by YouGov on behalf of the Economist magazine. All three candidates focused on the issue of the US economy which proved to be a winning strategy since it is clear the economy strongly affects Donald Trump’s job approval ratings.

As the president’s ratings on the economy decline, so does his job approval ratings. The result is that the Republicans took the blame for failing to deal with the issue.

The midterm Congressional elections in the US are due to take place in November 2026. Given the strong relationship between the economy and support for the president, it is interesting to examine how the economy is likely to influence support for the Democrats in those elections.

To investigate this, we can look at elections to the House of Representatives over a long period, given that they occur every two years.

The graph below compares the number of House seats won by the Democrats and economic growth in the US in all 40 House elections since 1946. Economic growth is weighted so that the Democrats benefit from high growth when they control the House but are penalised by this when the Republicans are in control.

This also works in reverse with low growth producing a poor electoral performance for the party when Democrats are in charge and a good performance when the Republicans are in control.

The relationship between economic growth and House seats won by Democrats 1946 to 2024:

Federal Researve Bank of St Louis/Paul Whiteley, Author provided (no reuse)

The impact of the economy on voting in these elections is clearly quite strong, but the number of House seats won declines as the party’s majority gets larger. This is what is known as a “ceiling” effect meaning that when the majority is very large it is difficult to win more seats even in a thriving economy.

But this relationship can nonetheless be used to develop a forecasting model of the seats likely to be captured by the party in midterm elections next year.

When forecasting seats, an additional factor to consider is the inertia of party support over successive elections. If the Democrats did well in one year, they were likely to do well two years later.

For example, in 2008 when Barack Obama won the presidential election, the Democrats captured 233 House seats and the Republicans 202. In the following midterm election in 2010 the party won 257 seats while the Republicans won 178 and so the Democrats retained control of the House.

At the moment the House has a Republican majority of 219 against 213 Democrats. So Republican control is quite vulnerable to a surge in support for the Democrats.

Multiple regression analysis

The forecasting model involves a multiple regression analysis. This uses several variables to predict the behaviour of a specific variable – in this case the number of House seats won by the Democrats.

In addition to the two variables already mentioned, approval ratings and the performance of the economy, the fact that the incumbent president is a Republican is included in the modelling as well since this influences the vote for the Democrats.

We know the number of House seats from the 2024 election and the fact that Trump is a Republican, so to forecast Democrat House seats we need a prediction for economic growth in 2026.

The Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis provides data which forecasts growth in the US economy up to 2028. It predicts that growth in real terms will be 1.8% in 2026 – and when this is included in the modelling, the overall forecast from these variables is 80% accurate.

If a variable is a perfect predictor of House seats it would score 1.0 and if it failed to predict any seats at all it would score 0. The impact of growth on seats when the Democrats controlled the House was 0.75, the inertia effect of past Democrat seats was 0.26 and Trump’s presidency was 0.19.

Low growth boosts Democrats’ prospects

Clearly economic growth dominates the picture showing that low growth rates next year will strengthen the Democrat challenge. This is likely to happen since a recent IMF report suggests that US growth is likely to slow next year.

Actual and predicted House seats in elections 1946 to 2026:

The Presidency Project/Paul Whiteley, Author provided (no reuse)

The third chart shows the relationship between Democratic House seats predicted by the model and the actual number of seats won by the party. The predictions track the actual number of Democrat House seats fairly closely and so the forecast should be reasonably accurate

It should be noted that all forecasting models are subject to significant errors. As the chart shows, the predicted number of seats is not the same as the actual number and if something unforeseen happens the predictions could be wrong. That said, however, the forecast is that the Democrats will win 223 seats – an increase of ten over their performance in 2024. This will give them enough to hand them control of the House. More

Australians remain supportive of the US alliance, but they are viewing it much more critically than before.

And many are more concerned about American behaviour under the Trump administration, while softening their views somewhat on China.

In a new poll of 2,045 people conducted by Australia-China Relations Institute at the University of Technology Sydney, 54% said they were concerned about US interference in Australia, a jump of nearly 20 points since 2021.

This narrows the gap with the level of concern about interference from China and Russia, which has steadied around 64%.

And for the first time in the five years we’ve been conducting this poll, more people think the United States (57%) rather than China (51%) would force Australia to pick sides in the rivalry between the two.

This is a striking shift that shows Australians are aware pressure can come from allies, as well as rivals. Nearly two-thirds of respondents think the second Trump presidency would make conflict with China more likely.

Even views of economic behaviour have flipped. For the first time, more Australians believe the US uses trade to punish countries politically (72%, up from 36% last year) than China (70%).

Rising support for defence spending

Broadly speaking, the poll shows Australians’ views of China have softened since 2021. Concern and mistrust remain widespread, but have eased.

Two-thirds of Australians see China as a security concern, though this is the lowest level in five years. Mistrust of the Chinese government has also fallen, from 76% in 2021 to 64% today.

And yet, regional flashpoints remain a focus. The South China Sea is seen as a major source of tension in the region, with 72% of respondents saying China’s actions there threaten Australia’s interests.

Most back cooperation, including joint patrols, with partners like the Philippines, Japan and the US, to maintain stability.

This heightened sense of risk continues to shape how people think about defence. Support for higher defence spending has reached 72% – the highest its ever been in our poll – though it drops considerably when trade-offs such as health or education spending are mentioned (55%).

Half of Australians think the plan to buy nuclear-powered submarines under AUKUS, the defence pact with the US and the United Kingdom, will make the country safer, while only one in four disagrees.

The USS Minnesota, a Virginia-class fast attack submarine, off the coast of Perth in March 2025.
Collin Murty/AFP Pool/AAP

Views on Taiwan have remained steady. Just 37% of Australians would support sending troops to defend Taiwan if China attacked, with most preferring neutrality or non-military engagement.

In a scenario where the US was drawn into a conflict with China over Taiwan, opinions are evenly split: 50% would favour Australia staying neutral, while 47% would back supporting the US.

China policy influencing more people’s votes

Overall, though, the softening of Australian views towards China signals people are seeing the need to balance the country’s values and interests when it comes to its number one trading partner.

Australians continue to see the economic relationship with China as both vital and risky.

Seven in ten respondents now say Australia should continue building ties with China, up ten points from last year.

And concern about over-dependence on China has dropped from 80% in 2021 to 66%, while those who see the relationship as representing “more risk than opportunity” has fallen from 53% to 39%.

Yet, Australians continue to support certain guardrails to safeguard the economy and national security.

Support for the federal government’s decision to end the Port of Darwin lease, held by the Chinese company Landbridge, is strong at 75%.

And two-thirds of respondents favour limiting all foreign investment in critical minerals, with even higher agreement (74%) when the question refers specifically to China.

An overwhelming majority (82%) draw a clear distinction between their views of the Chinese government and Australians of Chinese heritage. Yet, suspicion persists beneath the surface.

Around four in ten (38%) believe Australians of Chinese background could be mobilised by Beijing to undermine Australia’s interests and social cohesion, while 28% disagree, a durable minority view over five years.

Australians are clearly paying closer attention to how their leaders manage relations with China, too. Foreign policy has rarely shaped how Australians vote, yet 37% of respondents said China policy influenced their vote in the 2025 federal election, up ten points from the previous election in 2022.

Taken together, the findings from our survey show Australians have become more comfortable managing a complex and often tense relationship with China, seeing it as both an economic partner and strategic competitor.

And for the first time this year, this measured outlook extended to the United States, which is now seen as both ally and source of pressure.

The result is a more assured national mood, one that is realistic about risk yet confident in Australia’s ability to steer its own course in a contested world. More

Australians remain supportive of the US alliance, but they are viewing it much more critically than before.

And many are more concerned about American behaviour under the Trump administration, while softening their views somewhat on China.

In a new poll of 2,045 people conducted by Australia-China Relations Institute at the University of Technology Sydney, 54% said they were concerned about US interference in Australia, a jump of nearly 20 points since 2021.

This narrows the gap with the level of concern about interference from China and Russia, which has steadied around 64%.

And for the first time in the five years we’ve been conducting this poll, more people think the United States (57%) rather than China (51%) would force Australia to pick sides in the rivalry between the two.

This is a striking shift that shows Australians are aware pressure can come from allies, as well as rivals. Nearly two-thirds of respondents think the second Trump presidency would make conflict with China more likely.

Even views of economic behaviour have flipped. For the first time, more Australians believe the US uses trade to punish countries politically (72%, up from 36% last year) than China (70%).

Rising support for defence spending

Broadly speaking, the poll shows Australians’ views of China have softened since 2021. Concern and mistrust remain widespread, but have eased.

Two-thirds of Australians see China as a security concern, though this is the lowest level in five years. Mistrust of the Chinese government has also fallen, from 76% in 2021 to 64% today.

And yet, regional flashpoints remain a focus. The South China Sea is seen as a major source of tension in the region, with 72% of respondents saying China’s actions there threaten Australia’s interests.

Most back cooperation, including joint patrols, with partners like the Philippines, Japan and the US, to maintain stability.

This heightened sense of risk continues to shape how people think about defence. Support for higher defence spending has reached 72% – the highest its ever been in our poll – though it drops considerably when trade-offs such as health or education spending are mentioned (55%).

Half of Australians think the plan to buy nuclear-powered submarines under AUKUS, the defence pact with the US and the United Kingdom, will make the country safer, while only one in four disagrees.

The USS Minnesota, a Virginia-class fast attack submarine, off the coast of Perth in March 2025.
Collin Murty/AFP Pool/AAP

Views on Taiwan have remained steady. Just 37% of Australians would support sending troops to defend Taiwan if China attacked, with most preferring neutrality or non-military engagement.

In a scenario where the US was drawn into a conflict with China over Taiwan, opinions are evenly split: 50% would favour Australia staying neutral, while 47% would back supporting the US.

China policy influencing more people’s votes

Overall, though, the softening of Australian views towards China signals people are seeing the need to balance the country’s values and interests when it comes to its number one trading partner.

Australians continue to see the economic relationship with China as both vital and risky.

Seven in ten respondents now say Australia should continue building ties with China, up ten points from last year.

And concern about over-dependence on China has dropped from 80% in 2021 to 66%, while those who see the relationship as representing “more risk than opportunity” has fallen from 53% to 39%.

Yet, Australians continue to support certain guardrails to safeguard the economy and national security.

Support for the federal government’s decision to end the Port of Darwin lease, held by the Chinese company Landbridge, is strong at 75%.

And two-thirds of respondents favour limiting all foreign investment in critical minerals, with even higher agreement (74%) when the question refers specifically to China.

An overwhelming majority (82%) draw a clear distinction between their views of the Chinese government and Australians of Chinese heritage. Yet, suspicion persists beneath the surface.

Around four in ten (38%) believe Australians of Chinese background could be mobilised by Beijing to undermine Australia’s interests and social cohesion, while 28% disagree, a durable minority view over five years.

Australians are clearly paying closer attention to how their leaders manage relations with China, too. Foreign policy has rarely shaped how Australians vote, yet 37% of respondents said China policy influenced their vote in the 2025 federal election, up ten points from the previous election in 2022.

Taken together, the findings from our survey show Australians have become more comfortable managing a complex and often tense relationship with China, seeing it as both an economic partner and strategic competitor.

And for the first time this year, this measured outlook extended to the United States, which is now seen as both ally and source of pressure.

The result is a more assured national mood, one that is realistic about risk yet confident in Australia’s ability to steer its own course in a contested world. More

In recent weeks, Donald Trump’s supporters have begun to align around the idea that a Democrat-led “grand conspiracy” – potentially involving former president Barack Obama – has been plotting against the US president since 2016. The narrative is that the 2016 Russia investigation, which resulted in the Mueller inquiry was part of this deep-state opposition to Trump, as was the investigation into the January 6 riot at the US Capitol.

The focus of the fightback by Trump’s supporters is in Miami, where a Trump-appointed US attorney, Jason A. Reding Quiñones, has begun to issue subpoenas to a wide range of former officials.

This has included former CIA director John Brennan, former FBI counterintelligence official Peter Strzok, former FBI attorney Lisa Page and former director of national intelligence James Clapper, all of whom were involved in the federal investigation into alleged links between Russian intelligence and Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

The way the so-called conspiracy is unfolding will feel familiar to anyone who has watched US politics closely in the past decade. There’s been a constant stream of allegations and counter-allegations. But the narrative from the Trump camp is that the powerful “deep state” forces have been arrayed against the president. The “two-tier” justice system that has persecuted Trump can only be rebalanced by pursuing those who investigated him in 2017 and 2021.

The Grand Conspiracy contains similarities with other prominent conspiracy theories and how they spread. The QAnon movement, whose most famous claim is of a global paedophile ring run out of a Washington pizza parlour involving senior Democrats, is one where disparate claims are sporadically and partially evidenced. The political potency of these claims does not sit in the individual pieces of evidence but in the overarching story.

The story is that hidden government and proxy networks manipulate the truth and judicial outcomes and that only through pressure from “truthers” (what many people in the US who believe conspiracy theories call themselves) will wrongdoers be brought to account. Once these ideas are popularised, they take on a momentum and a direction that is difficult to control.

Campaign of ‘lawfare’

Soon after his inauguration, Trump set up a “weaponization working group” within the Department of Justice. Its director, Ed Martin, said in May that he would expose and discredit people he believes to be guilty, even if the evidence wasn’t sufficient to charge them: “If they can be charged, we’ll charge them. But if they can’t be charged, we will name them. And we will name them, and in a culture that respects shame, they should be people that are ashamed.”

In the US the norm has been to “charge crimes, not people”, so this modification fundamentally changes the focus of prosecutors.

Former FBI director James Comey responds to his indictment by grand jury in September.

The recent subpoenas in Florida show this principle at work, effectively making legal process into the punishment. Even without full court hearings on specific charges, being forced to provide testimony or documents creates suspicion around those who are targeted. Criticism from legal officials that this is a “indict first, investigate second” method suggests that this is a break from historical norms.

Lawfare, defined as “legal action undertaken as part of a hostile campaign”, doesn’t require a successful prosecution. It merely requires enough investigative activity to solidify a narrative of suspected guilt and enough costs and pressure to seriously inconvenience those affected by it. In the new era of digital media, it’s enough to degrade the standing of a political opponent.

In that way, political retaliation has become a prosecuting objective. This is clear from what the US president has indicated in his frequent posts on his social media platforms for his enemies, such as former FBI director James Comey, who investigated his alleged links to Russia, or Adam Schiff, the senator who led his impeachment in 2019.

Hardball politics or authoritarianism?

Political scientists argue that authoritarianism is something that happens little by little. Some of these steps involve using state power to target political opponents, degrading checks and balances and making loyalty a legal requirement.

There are reasons to believe that the US seems to be tracking this trajectory currently, certainly when it comes to using the Justice Department to harass the president’s political enemies and pushing back against court judgments while attacking the judges that have issued them.

Further slides towards authoritarianism are possible because of the political potency of contemporary conspiracy movements. The right-wing QAnon movement, for example, has been exceptionally agile. It has offered its followers identity, community spaces and a logic that encourages active participation, exhorting believers to “do your own research”, for example.

Many of the people who stormed the US capitol on January 6 2021 were believers in the QAnon conspiracy theory.
EPA/Jim Lo Scalzo

In the wake of the near daily addition of material from the investigations into the allegations that the late financier, Jeffrey Epstein, ran a sex trafficking ring, involving some influential US citizens, many American citizens have concluded as a general truth that their elites do hide things. This makes it far simpler for broader conspiracies to gain traction and more difficult for politicians and journalists to work out what is conspiracy and what is evidence. This is creating a problematic feedback loop – hints of wrongdoing fuel public suspicion, and public suspicion fuels the idea of a further need for investigation.

But to suggest that anyone has control over this would be wrong. These movements can just as easily consume those seen as supporters as they do those seen as enemies. Marjorie Taylor-Greene’s determination to release the full and unredacted Epstein files could well produce negative outcomes for some Maga supporters, including prominent ones.

So, the transformation of legal process into public spectacle in America is suggestive of a drift towards authoritarianism. America’s famous “constitutional guardrails” of separation of powers, independent courts, juries and counsels will be pivotal in preventing this. They will need to stand firm.

The grand conspiracy theory might be more about seeking to isolate, and financially and emotionally exhaust opponents, while at the same time destroying America’s system of checks and balances. It might work. More

When the NFL in September 2025 announced that Bad Bunny would headline the next Super Bowl halftime show, it took only hours for the political outrage machine to roar to life.

The Puerto Rican performer, known for mixing pop stardom with outspoken politics, was swiftly recast by conservative influencers as the latest symbol of America’s “woke” decline.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem joined the critics on conservative commentator Benny Johnson’s podcast.

“Well, they suck, and we’ll win,” she said, speaking of the NFL’s choice. “And they’re so weak, we’ll fix it.”

President Donald Trump called Bad Bunny’s selection “absolutely ridiculous” on the right-wing media outlet Newsmax. And far-right radio host and prominent conspiracy theorist Alex Jones fanned the flames of anti-NFL sentiment online. Hashtags like #BoycottBadBunny spread on the social platform X, where the performer was branded a “demonic Marxist” by right-wing influencers.

Then it was Bad Bunny’s turn. Hosting “Saturday Night Live,” he embraced the controversy, defending his heritage and answering his critics in Spanish before declaring, “If you didn’t understand what I just said, you have four months to learn.”

By the time NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell addressed the backlash, the outrage had already served its purpose. The story had become another front in the culture war between left and right, complete with nationalism, identity politics, media spectacle and performative anger.

As a researcher of propaganda, I’ve spent the past three years tracking these cycles of outrage across social platforms and partisan media, studying how they hijack the national conversation and spill into local politics. My recent book, “”Populism, Propaganda, and Political Extremism,” is guided by a single question: How much of our political outrage is really our own?

Outrage before the event

Culture wars have long shaped American politics, from battles over gun rights to disputes over prayer in schools, book bans and historical monuments.

Sociologist James Davison Hunter coined the term “culture wars” to describe a recurring struggle, not just over social issues but over “the meaning of America.” These battles once arose from spontaneous events that struck a cultural nerve. An American flag is set ablaze, and citizens quickly take sides as the political world responds in kind.

But today that order has reversed. Culture wars now begin in the political sector, where professional partisans introduce them into the public discourse, then watch them take hold. They’re marketed to media audiences as storylines, designed to spark outrage and turn disengaged voters into angry ones.

One clear sign that outrage is being manufactured is when the backlash begins long before the designated “controversial event” even occurs.

In 2022, American audiences were urged by conservative influencers to condemn Pixar’s film “Lightyear” months before it reached theaters. A same-sex kiss turned the film into a vessel for accusations of Hollywood’s “culture agenda.” Driven by partisan efforts, the outrage spread online, mixing with darker elements and eventually culminating in neo-Nazi protests outside Disney World.

This primed outrage appears across the political spectrum.

Last spring, when President Donald Trump announced a military parade in Washington, leading Democrats quickly framed it as an unmistakable show of authoritarianism. By the time the parade arrived months later, it was met with dueling “No Kings” demonstrations across the country.

And when HBO host Bill Maher said in March that he would be dining with Trump, the comedian faced a preemptive backlash, which escalated into vocal criticism from the political left before either of the men raised a fork.

The El Capitan Theatre in Los Angeles promotes LGBTQIA+ Pride Month and Pixar’s ‘Lightyear’ on June 21, 2022.
AaronP/Bauer-Griffin/GC Images

Today, few things are marketed as aggressively as political anger, as seen in the recent firestorm against Bad Bunny. It’s promoted daily through podcasts, hashtags, memes and merchandise.

Increasingly, these fiery narratives originate not in politics but in popular culture, providing an enticing hook for stories about the left’s control over culture or the right’s claims to real America.

In recent months alone, outrage among America’s polarized political bases has flared over a Cracker Barrel logo change, “woke Superman,” Sydney Sweeney’s American Eagle ad and, with Bad Bunny, the NFL’s Super Bowl performer.

Platforms like X and TikTok deliver the next diatribes, amplified by partisan influencers and spread by algorithms. From there, they become national stories, often marked by headlines promising the latest “liberal meltdown” or “MAGA tantrum.”

But manufactured outrage doesn’t stop at the national level. It surfaces in local politics, where these stories play out in protests and town halls.

The local echo

I wanted to understand how these narratives reach communities and how politically active citizens see themselves within this cycle. Over the past year, I interviewed liberal and conservative activists, beginning in my hometown, where opposing protesters have faced off every Saturday for two decades.

Their signs echo the same narratives that dominate national politics: warnings about the left’s “woke agenda” and charges of “Trump fascism.” When asked about the opposition, protesters reached for familiar caricatures. Conservatives often described the left as “radical” and “socialist,” while those on the left saw the right as “cultlike” and “extremist.”

Yet beneath the anger, both sides recognized something larger at play – the sense that outrage itself is being engineered. “The media constantly fan the flames of division for more views,” one protester said. Across the street, his counterpart agreed: “Politics is being pushed into previously nonpolitical areas.”

When Cracker Barrel attempted to change its logo in August 2025, the move was met by severe criticism from loyal customers who preferred the brand’s traditional image. President Donald Trump soon weighed in and urged the company to revert to its old logo.
AP Photo/Ted Shaffrey

Both camps pointed to the media as the primary culprit, the force that “causes and benefits from the outrage.” A liberal activist observed, “Media tend to focus on whoever shouts the loudest.” A conservative demonstrator agreed: “I feel like the media promotes extreme idealists. The loudest voice gets the most coverage.”

“It’s been a crazy few years, moving further to the extremes, and tensions are always rising,” one protester reflected. “But I think people are realizing that now.”

Across the divide, protesters understood that they were participants in something larger than their weekly standoffs, a system that converts every political difference into a national spectacle. They saw it, resented it and yet couldn’t escape it.

That brings us back to Bad Bunny. The anger that Americans are encouraged to feel over his selection – or in defense of it – keeps the country locked in its corners. Studies show that as a result of these cycles, Americans on the left and right have developed an exaggerated sense of the other side’s hostility, exactly as some political demagogues intend.

It has created a split screen of the country, literally in the case of Bad Bunny. On Super Bowl night, there will be dueling halftime shows. On one screen, Bad Bunny will perform for approving viewers. On the other, the conservative nonprofit Turning Point USA will host its “All-American Halftime Show” for those intent on tuning Bad Bunny out.

Two screens. Two Americas. More