Social media

Subterms

    Latest story

    200 Shares38 Views

    Trump’s third term? Don’t laugh. He’s never let the rules stop him before | Arwa Mahdawi

    by

    Let me tell you a secret about the US constitution: it’s just a piece of paper. It’s not immutable law created by a higher being. It was made by men, it’s been amended by men, and it can be destroyed by men. It’s only as strong as the institutions that uphold it – institutions which Donald Trump has been systematically weakening as he expands his executive power.I say this because there are still lots of people who have faith that the constitution can stop the US from gradually turning into an electoral autocracy like Hungary. There are still people so drunk on American exceptionalism that they think it’s ludicrous to believe Trump might seek a third term, because such a move is explicitly outlawed by the 22nd amendment of the constitution.But the president and his cronies don’t think the idea is ludicrous. Trump has refused to rule out the idea of a third term on multiple occasions – most recently on Monday when he told reporters he “would love to do it”. And last week Trump’s former White House chief strategist, Steve Bannon, told the Economist that “there’s a plan” to get Trump a third term.Don’t dismiss this as trolling or an attempt to shake off the “lame duck” label second-term presidents are landed with. The golden rule of Trumpism is this: no matter how illegal or unusual something may be, if Trump can figure out a way to do it, then he will. And while I think it’s extremely unlikely, there is a path to Trump 3.0. Here’s a very simplified version of how it might pan out.Step one, obviously, is to figure out a plausible legal basis for a third term. Repealing the 22nd amendment, ratified in 1951 in response to Franklin D Roosevelt bucking tradition and serving a third term, requires approval from two-thirds of the House and Senate. Not easy. Another possibility is a constitutional convention; two-thirds of state legislatures (34 states) would need to call for a convention and any amendment would need ratification by three-quarters of state legislatures. This would also be incredibly difficult but it’s worth noting that the Heritage Foundation, which is responsible for Project 2025, are keen on holding a constitutional convention. And where there’s a will, and a lot of cash from ultra-wealthy donors, there is often a way.Another possibility is that Trump could declare a state of emergency and postpone the 2028 election. Trump loves a good fake emergency: he’s already used at least 10 emergency declarations to justify everything from his tariffs to dispatching the National Guard to Los Angeles. Again: while this seems far-fetched, we live in extraordinary times; it shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand.Once you’ve conjured up a legal basis (no matter how flimsy) for a third term or extended second term, you’ve got to manipulate public opinion to make it seem above board as opposed to autocratic shenanigans. Trump has already proved himself adept at chipping away at press freedom and turning elements of the US media from watchdogs to lapdogs.Social media, as we all know, is also easily manipulated; some studies suggest one-third of the internet is now bots. Reports show that Russia and Israel have poured huge amounts of money into bot-based programs to push propaganda to US audiences. And they’re spending that money because it works: fake accounts can cause very real shifts in views. Remember the hoo-ha over the recent Cracker Barrel rebrand? Researchers think it was largely driven by bots. Now that Elon Musk owns X and TikTok is on its way to being owned by a consortium of Trump’s pals (with Barron Trump potentially sitting on the board), much of social media has been Maga-fied. It’s gone from being a place to find alternative views to a consent-manufacturing machine.Finally, you’ve got to neutralise your opposition. Unlike the previous two steps, this is easy, since there’s no opposition. The Democrats are still floundering and trying to figure out what they stand for. Meanwhile, Kamala Harris, who appears to surround herself exclusively with sycophants, is threatening to run again in 2028. Doing so would be a gift to Trump. Gavin Newsom, a likely 2028 contender, is a more serious threat to Maga but there’s still plenty of time to do what Democrats do best and self-sabotage.Look, I hope my fears are unfounded. I hope the Democrats seize the moment. I hope Trumpism is a temporary nightmare. But while we should hope for the best, we should be prepared for the worst. I don’t want to have to say “I told you so” from an ICE detention centre. Arwa Mahdawi is a Guardian columnist and the author of Strong Female Lead More

    More stories

    • 150 Shares56 Views

      in US Politics

      US and China reach ‘final deal’ on TikTok sale, treasury secretary says

      by

      US treasury secretary Scott Bessent claimed on Sunday that the US and China have finalized the details of a deal transferring TikTok’s US version to new owners.“We reached a final deal on TikTok,” Bessent said on Sunday on CBS’s Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan. Alluding to Donald Trump and his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, Bessent continued: “We reached [a deal] in Madrid, and I believe that as of today, all the details are ironed out, and that will be for the two leaders to consummate that transaction” during a meeting scheduled for Thursday in Korea.Bessent did not disclose any details of the deal. But he did say it was a part of a broader framework – agreed to by both the US and China – of a potential trade deal to be discussed when Trump and Xi meet in the coming days.The comments from Bessent came after Trump signed an executive order on 25 September paving the way for a deal for new ownership based in the US, with a majority of American investors.“I’m not part of the commercial side of the transaction,” Bessent added. “My remit was to get the Chinese to agree to approve the transaction, and I believe we successfully accomplished that over the past two days.”Trump’s 19-year-old son, Barron Trump, has been floated by the president’s former social media producer Jack Advent as a potential board member. Trump has indicated new US investors include conservative media owners Rupert Murdoch and Larry Ellison.In 2020, during his first presidency, Trump threatened to ban TikTok in 2020 in retaliation for China’s handling of Covid-19.Congress passed a ban of the app before it was signed into law in April 2024 by Joe Biden when he was president in between Trump’s two terms. It was set to go into effect on 20 January 2025 but was extended four times by Trump while his administration worked to develop a deal to transfer ownership.The deal is estimated to be valued at $14bn. The majority of US and international investors will own about 65% of the company, with ByteDance and Chinese investors owning less than a 20% stake.Trump’s executive order hands oversight of the app’s algorithm to the new investors, including six out of seven seats on the board of directors.Trump arrived in Malaysia on Sunday for a summit of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, as part of a five-day tour of the continent, with an expected face-to-face meeting between Trump and Xi on Thursday.The two are expected to discuss soybean and agricultural purchases from US farmers, trade balance, and the American fentanyl crisis, which was cited as the basis for Trump’s 20% tariffs on Chinese imports. More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      How memes, gaming and internet culture all relate to the Charlie Kirk shooting

      by

      Hello, and welcome to TechScape. Dara Kerr here, filling in for Blake Montgomery, who promises he’ll come back from vacation. Meanwhile, I’m looking at the memes, gaming and internet culture behind the shooting of Charlie Kirk.The bullet that killed conservative activist was inscribed with a message: “Notices bulge OwO whats this?” The online world quickly recognized the reference. It’s a phrase used in internet culture to troll people in online role-play communities, specifically furries (a subculture that cosplays as anthropomorphic animal characters).“The phrase has been popularized not only as a way of making fun of furries and related communities for being cringe, but has also been embraced by furries as a way of owning the meme,” writes Know Your Meme, a website that documents viral phenomena. “Ultimately, the phrase is portrayed in memes as being one of the most cringeworthy things someone could possibly write to another person.”Other bullet casings recovered by law enforcement in Utah also had etched inscriptions that appeared to nod to online gaming and insider memes, which have become part of the intense social media speculation on a possible motive for the killing. One said: “O Bella Ciao, Bella Ciao”, another said: “If you read this, you are gay, LMAO.” The first message refers to an Italian anti-fascist folk song that has become a gamer reference that’s big in Twitch and Discord circles. The second message is what web culture writer Ryan Broderick calls “just boilerplate edgelord speak” in his newsletter last week titled “Charlie Kirk was killed by a meme”.The final inscribed casing that law enforcement released said: “Hey fascist! Catch!” and was followed by an up arrow, right arrow and three down arrow symbols. The arrow sequence appears to reference the video game Helldivers 2, and is a set of commands used by players to release a 500kg bomb in the game.The alleged shooter, Tyler James Robinson, is a 22-year-old from a small town in Utah near the Arizona border. He is accused of killing Kirk at a campus event at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah. Kirk was struck by a single bullet fired with a “high-powered bolt action rifle” from a distant rooftop.As the suspect was steeped in online culture, so was Charlie Kirk, who was 31. He was at the school on behalf of his conservative youth organization, Turning Point USA. He’d become known worldwide speaking about and debating others, often on his extremist views on race, immigration, gender identity and gun rights. Kirk’s rise to fame was also largely bolstered by being extremely online.As my colleague Alaina Demopoulos wrote:A key figure in Donald Trump’s success, Kirk galvanized college-aged conservatives who moved in a different ecosystem from traditional media. The decade or so between Kirk’s beginnings as a teen activist and the shooting saw the rise of Maga politics alongside the shake-up of the conventional media landscape, with Kirk playing a crucial role in both.Kirk founded Turning Point USA in 2012 with a clear goal of making Obama era-style youth outreach work for the right, and even those who didn’t agree with his values could not deny his ubiquity on the political scene. For the young Americans who grew up watching Kirk on their screens, he was a savant at YouTube, Twitter and later X, TikTok and live events. He was like a gen Z and millennial version of Rush Limbaugh – the rightwing, shock-jock commentator who dominated US airwaves in the 1990s – even if his base had no clue who that was.Read the full story here.Whistleblowers against Meta stack upView image in fullscreenMeta was hit by two separate whistleblower claims last week. One by a group of six former and current employees, who allege the social media company has covered up harm to children on its Metaverse virtual reality devices and apps. And another by Meta’s former head of security for WhatsApp, Attaullah Baig, who alleges the company brushed aside major security and privacy flaws in its messaging app, according to the New York Times.In response to my reporting about VR devices, Meta spokesperson Dani Lever said the company has approved 180 studies related to its VR Reality Labs since 2022, which include research on youth safety and wellbeing. “These few examples are being stitched together to fit a predetermined and false narrative,” she said, adding that Meta has introduced features to its VR products to limit unwanted contact and supervision tools for parents.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionOne of the first whistleblowers was Sophie Zhang, who brought her findings to the Guardian in 2021. Zhang documented how Facebook allowed political manipulation in more than 25 countries, which led to disastrous circumstances in several places including Myanmar, Azerbaijan and Honduras. Later that same year, Frances Haugen turned over to the Wall Street Journal reams of documentation verifying much of Zhang’s allegations and also bringing to light Facebook’s knowledge of how its social media apps harmed teens.In 2023, Arturo Bejar also went to the Wall Street Journal with evidence that Meta knew its algorithms for Facebook and Instagram were pushing content to teens that promoted bullying, drug abuse, eating disorders and self-harm.This year alone, eight more whistleblowers have come forward. Baig and the group of six former and current employees went public last week.US lawmakers are taking the allegations seriously. Politicians as disparate as Josh Hawley, the Republican senator from Missouri, and Richard Blumenthal, the democrat from Connecticut, have said they see eye-to-eye when it comes to regulating Meta and other social media companies.“The details in these disclosures are hard to stomach – because they reveal such major risks to kids’ safety, and because they are so painfully familiar. Yet again, Meta is revealed to be willfully misrepresenting abuses on its platforms,” Blumenthal said of the whistleblower claims last week. “‘Hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil’ is simply not an acceptable business philosophy.”Blumenthal added that he and other senators were looking forward to pushing ahead with “long overdue reform”.The wider TechScape

      How thousands of ‘overworked, underpaid’ humans train Google’s AI to seem smart

      Larry Ellison: Oracle co-founder who overtook Musk as world’s richest person

      Apple debuts thinner, $999 iPhone Air at ‘awe-dropping’ annual product event

      How to Save the Internet by Nick Clegg review – spinning Silicon Valley

      The women in love with AI companions: ‘I vowed to my chatbot that I wouldn’t leave him’ More

    • 275 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      The US is on the brink of another era of political violence – and Donald Trump ‘couldn’t care less’ | Jonathan Freedland

      by

      The killing of Charlie Kirk has left the US and those who care about it on edge. The arrest of a suspect, Tyler Robinson, has hardly settled the nerves, not when the revelation of any supposed political allegiances could touch off a fresh round of recriminations. The fear is that the country is about to descend into a new era of political violence, becoming a place where differences are settled not with words and argument but by guns and blood. After all, it has plumbed those depths before.The US was born in violence, fought a civil war less than a century after its founding and in living memory seemed to be on the brink of another one – with a spate of assassinations in the 1960s that took the lives of Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Medgar Evers and John and Bobby Kennedy. That should provide some consolation, the knowledge that the country has been through this before and survived.And yet the comfort is scant, because these are different times. For one thing, guns are even more available now than they were then: there are more than 850m firearms in private hands in the world, and nearly half of those are owned by Americans. For every 100 Americans, there are 120 guns.For another, today’s information supply is dominated by social media, amplifying the most extreme voices and rewarding the angriest sentiments. Where once the CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite could break the news of a presidential assassination and provide sombre balm, now grief is inflamed into fury, with footage of Kirk’s horrific shooting entering global circulation mere moments after his death.But the crucial difference is at the top. An act of political violence used to be met by a standard, reassuringly predictable response: the president would condemn it, grieve for the dead and their families, plead that there be no rush to judgment, and call for calm and for unity, insisting that Americans not give the killers what they want, which was division, but rather come together as fellow citizens of a republic they all loved. I heard versions of that speech, delivered at different moments by Bill Clinton, George W Bush and Barack Obama. On Wednesday night, Donald Trump chose an alternative path – one that proved that, as he later admitted to Fox News when asked about bringing the country together, he “couldn’t care less”.Instead, and at a time when no one was in custody and nothing at all was known of Kirk’s killer, Trump said the blame for his death lay with “the radical left”. It was its “rhetoric” that was “directly responsible for the terrorism that we’re seeing in our country today”. The problem was not political violence in general, but “radical left political violence”.Put aside the inaccuracy of such a statement. Put aside the documented fact that not some, but all extremist-related killings in the US in 2024 were connected to rightwing extremism, just as they were in 2023 and in 2022. Put aside that, although Trump listed incidents in which figures associated with the right had been attacked, he pointedly did not mention and wilfully chose to ignore the murder of the Democratic Minnesota lawmaker Melissa Hortman and her husband in June; or the arson attack on the home of the Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, Josh Shapiro, in April; or an earlier plot to kidnap the Democratic governor of Michigan.Put it all aside, even though it exposes the transparent falsity of Trump’s declaration that US political violence comes from one side only. Consider instead the likely effect of his words. At best, they add fuel to an already incendiary situation. At worst, they encourage retaliation and revenge.Witness Trump’s allies and cheerleaders. “We’re gonna avenge Charlie’s death,” promised Fox News host Jesse Watters. Elon Musk declared that “The Left is the party of murder”. A legion of other rightwing influencers have already taken this talk to its logical conclusion, announcing, as one put it, that “THIS IS WAR”. Could the message being sent to a furious and well-armed support base be any clearer?And notice something else Trump said on Wednesday. He pledged to find those “organisations that fund and support” what he classifies as political violence. Given that one of his closest aides said before Kirk’s murder that the Democratic party should be viewed as a “domestic extremist organisation”, it’s not hard to imagine who he will be coming for. Surely any group that opposes him.How should they – Democrats, liberals, the left – be responding to this moment of peril? So far they have observed the old norms, with almost every Democratic figure of any standing, whether former president or serving politician, offering the decent, human response: horror at such a brutal act, sympathy for Kirk’s wife and now-fatherless young children, fear for where this leaves the country. Watch MSNBC, or listen to the Pod Save crowd, and you’ll see that that’s how most of the leading lights in the anti-Trump universe have, rightly, responded. Any deviation from that norm has been punished.It is one of the asymmetries of the US culture wars that this etiquette, rigorously enforced from left to right, is not observed in the other direction. So when an intruder broke into the home of the former House speaker Nancy Pelosi, and nearly clubbed her husband, Paul, then 82, to death, the leading Republican in the country did not offer condemnation or words of consolation. No, Trump responded by making repeated jokes at Paul Pelosi’s expense.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionDifferent rules apply. After an act of violence, Democrats must be gracious, empathetic and call for calm on all sides, while Republicans can mock the victims, blame only one side and demand more violence. And there’s a further asymmetry: a single post from a random, anonymous user online will be treated as a statement from “the left”, while the outpourings of the right’s most powerful voices, in politics or the media, and including the president himself, somehow get a free pass.As part of this etiquette, it’s become poor taste to point out Kirk’s actual views. It’s as if the belief that no one should be killed for their opinions requires you to withhold any judgment of those opinions. But Kirk did not hold back. He was happy to tell people that he would be nervous getting on a plane flown by a Black pilot, and to talk of “prowling Blacks”; to tell Taylor Swift to “Reject feminism. Submit to your husband … You’re not in charge”; to deny the truth of the 2020 election; to recommend that children should watch public executions; and to suggest “Jewish dollars” were to blame for the spread of “cultural Marxism”.Many liberal luminaries have swerved past this back catalogue, preferring to express their admiration for Kirk’s willingness to debate and his genuine gift for engaging the young. That has left the field clear for the right to redefine Kirk not as the extremist he was – and was proud to be – but as a paragon of civic participation, one who merits a posthumous presidential medal of freedom and a lowering of the flag. While the liberal left is observing the conventional pieties, the right is swiftly sanitising Kirk’s views and canonising him, hailing him as a martyr for the cause of what they insist is “simple common sense”. As a result, it will have moved the Overton window yet further in its direction.These are dynamics Kirk knew well and that he was adroit at using to his advantage. He understood that a culture war inherently favours those willing to disregard the rules. It is a lesson that liberals and the left are, rightly, reluctant to learn – but that reluctance comes at an increasingly high price.

      Jonathan Freedland is a Guardian columnist

      Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here. More

    • 188 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Virulent debater and clickbait savant: how Charlie Kirk pushed a new generation to the right

      by

      After clinching the title of top conservative podcast in America (and second overall news podcast, according to Apple’s ranking) in March, Charlie Kirk said: “We’re not just talking. We’re activating a revolution.”In the hours after his killing at age 31 on the first stop of a buzzy college campus tour, the rightwing activist’s words echoed through young conservative circles. Social media eulogies rolled in, with users reposting clips of Kirk with his wife and children. Parents of teens wrote on X of learning about Kirk’s death through their children. “My 17 year old is bumming. Told me he plays Charlie in the background on his computer when he’s on it,” the conservative radio host Jesse Kelly wrote on X. Another X user wrote about speaking to teens at a church youth group: “Everyone I talked to is so distraught and heartbroken at his passing.”A key figure in Donald Trump’s success, Kirk galvanized college-aged conservatives who moved in a different ecosystem from traditional media. The decade or so between Kirk’s beginnings as a teen activist and the shooting saw the rise of Maga politics alongside the shake-up of the conventional media landscape, with Kirk playing a crucial role in both.Kirk founded Turning Point USA in 2012 with a clear goal of making Obama era-style youth outreach work for the right, and even those who didn’t agree with his values could not deny his ubiquity on the political scene. For the young Americans who grew up watching Kirk on their screens, he was a savant at YouTube, Twitter and later X, TikTok and live events. He was like a gen Z and millennial version of Rush Limbaugh – the rightwing, shock-jock commentator who dominated US airwaves in the 1990s – even if his base had no clue who that was.Kirk’s ideology was caustic; he espoused openly homophobic, racist, sexist, Islamophobic and Christian nationalist views while uplifting misinformation and conspiracy theories. He also campaigned on issues that mattered to young Americans, engaging directly with them – no matter how virulently – on hot-button topics such as abortion, transgender rights, race and Palestinian solidarity.View image in fullscreenAmy Binder, a professor of sociology at Johns Hopkins University who studies politics and education, describes Kirk’s values as “insurgency conservatism” that was “designed to get attention”.It worked: TikTok users under 30 who voted for Trump in 2024 said they trusted Kirk more than any other individual, according to a New York Times profile, despite the fact that he never held office or a role in the White House. That election saw male voters ages 18 to 29 swing hard to the right; Trump also made inroads with gen Z women. Earlier this year, Trump praised Kirk for “what he’s done with the young people”.As a millennial growing up in the Chicago suburbs, Kirk was obsessed with Limbaugh and the Tea Party movement. His fans also felt like outsiders within the American political system.“After Trump was elected in 2016, I was really surprised to see just how many students who were conservative were no longer identifying with the Republican party or with college Republicans, and had instead pivoted over to being really intrigued with what Turning Point was doing on campus,” Binder said. “They were doing much more exciting programming. It was less electorally focused, less about campaigning, and more about having events that were really confrontational.”Kirk appeared equally at ease chumming it up with high-powered donors as he did debating 20-year-olds in sweatpants. Kirk sparred directly with young people through video templates such as “prove me wrong” (a one-on-one debate, where students could wait in line to ask him a question), and he was an early guest on the YouTube series Surrounded, where he sat in a room with 25 liberals and goaded them with statements such as “abortion is murder and should be illegal” and “trans women are not women.”Turning Point USA raked in funding – the New York Times estimated a $92.4m revenue in 2023 – while advancing campus culture wars. Kirk’s content brought classic and extreme rightwing ideals to young people’s media feeds; he looked like both an old-school, suited conservative in the style of a Fox News host, and a social media-savvy man of the times. His video titles usually bent toward hyperbole (“Charlie Kirk Crushes Woke Lies at Michigan State,” was posted less than a week before the shooting). There were gonzo premises, such as when Kirk and the YouTube prank team Nelk Boys showed up at a Wisconsin frat party to get out the vote in 2024. His meme literacy showed when he handed out hats that read: “White Boy Summer”, a remix of Megan Thee Stallion’s “Hot Girl Summer” catchphrase.With his wife, Erika, owner of a faith-based fashion brand and a former Miss Arizona USA, Kirk softened his image, presenting himself as devoted husband, father and a bit of a lifestyle influencer. He talked to tweens in Maga hats about his preferred Starbucks order and promoted “cuteservatives” like Alex Clark, a Turning Point USA podcaster who branded her show on Maha culture as a rightwing Call Her Daddy. After Kirk’s death, Brett Cooper, a 23-year-old conservative influencer in the “womanosphere” with more than 1 million Instagram followers, reposted a video homage that depicted him as a champion for girls and young women. (Yet this was a man who compared abortion to the Holocaust and claimed that women over 30 “aren’t attractive in the dating pool”.)View image in fullscreenFor 10 years, Turning Point USA hosted a “women’s summit”, where Kirk and others like Clark and Cooper encouraged attenders to focus on finding husbands. Evie, the conservative women’s magazine, published an obituary that called Kirk a “loving father, patriot, and husband”.Even young people who were disgusted by Kirk’s rhetoric could not deny his impact. Hasan Piker, the hugely popular leftwing Twitch streamer whose ideology stands in direct contrast to Kirk, was scheduled to debate with Kirk at the end of September at Dartmouth University. Both Piker and the gun control activist David Hogg spoke against political violence in the wake of the shooting (as did many Democratic figures such as Joe Biden, Gavin Newsom and the New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani). Piker told his followers not to make jokes about Kirk’s shooting. “This is a terrifying incident,” Piker said. Hogg called the news “horrifying” on X.“I think it’s undeniable to say that Kirk was one of the first and most prominent people to shape what it means to be young and on the right in the US,” said Kurt Braddock, an assistant professor of communications at American University who studies extremism.After Kirk’s death, Braddock said he had seen “individuals calling this an inflection point, or a turning point where the left can no longer be tolerated”. Rightwing pundits have been eager to blame the left for the shooting.Adam Pennings, 25, is the executive director of Run Gen Z, a non-profit that supports young Republican candidates. “He’s always just been such an important part” of the young conservative party, Pennings said of Kirk. “He was everywhere.”Pennings knew Kirk through his work, but the two were not close. Still, Pennings said, due to Kirk’s omnipresence: “I feel like I lost a friend.” More

    • 175 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Unhinged tweets and absurd self-promotion? Two can play at that game | Margaret Sullivan

      by

      Just when you thought Donald Trump was parody-proof, Gavin Newsom comes along to prove you wrong.Unhinged all-caps tweets with nonsensical punctuation? Insulting nicknames for political enemies? Self-promotional merchandise for sale?This will all sound familiar unless you have been living in a bubble for the past decade. But if the description conjures an orange-toned Republican in a golf cart – a wannabe dictator in a red tie down to his hefty thighs – your system needs an update.Because it turns out that Trump is not the only one who can play that game.The California governor has spent the last few weeks mercilessly trolling Trump and his Maga followers by flipping the script. His press office is blasting out long, illogical social media posts, depicting Newsom as a muscular Adonis ready to save the world and suggesting his image should be carved in stone on Mount Rushmore or grace the cover of Time magazine wearing a crown and a grin.It’s been a master class in flipping the script – and maybe in political gamesmanship, too. With his social media profile soaring and political coffers filling up, these moves could even help Newsom gain access to the very White House that Trump has tackily transformed into a miniature Mar-a-Lago.Newsom’s counterpunching has earned the approval of everyone from the former president Barack Obama to Steve Bannon, the disreputable architect of some of Trump’s worst moves.“He’s no Trump but … he’s at least getting up there,” Bannon told Politico. “He looks like the only person in the Democratic party who is organizing a fight that they feel they can win.”Obama endorsed the more serious side of what Newsom is up to – praising as “smart, measured, responsible” the governor’s plan to counter the recent Republican gerrymandering of Texas congressional districts with a redistricting measure in California to benefit Democrats.But Newsom’s newfound prominence isn’t pleasing everyone. The pro-Trump commenters on Fox News are disapproving, as if they haven’t spent a decade cheering the same techniques. Sean Hannity, the network’s chief Trump whisperer, trashed the trolling as a “performative confrontational style” that only works with “the loony radical base”.If that sounds familiar, so did the all-caps response from Newsom’s press office: “FOX HATES THAT I AM AMERICA’S FAVORITE GOVERNOR (‘RATINGS KING’) SAVING AMERICA – WHILE TRUMP CAN’T EVEN CONQUER THE ‘BIG’ STAIRS ON AIR FORCE ONE ANY MORE!!! … FOX IS LOSING IT BECAUSE WHEN I TYPE, AMERICA NOW WINS!!! THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER.”And Trump himself is clearly triggered. Weeks ago, he suggested Newsom should be arrested. More recently he dusted off an old nickname: “Newscum”.But here, too, Newsom’s team punched back, posting a simple diss – three snowflake emojis.The script-switching is clever, and often downright funny; the humor is effective partly because Newsom’s real-life persona stands in stark contrast to Trump’s.Newsom is the California pretty boy – he looks like he eats only kale and quinoa, with an occasional helping of asparagus. His politics are progressive, if not sharply defined, and he is married to a woman of career accomplishment, Jennifer Siebel Newsom. She’s a documentary film-maker and actor, who (cover your ears, woke-fearing Magaworld!) has updated the role of first lady with a more gender neutral title: “First Partner.”The Democrats’ old aspiration, expressed by Michelle Obama, was “when they go low, we go high”. Too often that has translated into passivity and ineptitude. But since the low-high approach has failed – the Democrats are powerless on the national level – Newsom’s moves are energizing.It’s too bad, of course, that insults and absurd memes have become the American way. But at least Newsom, and his social media team, are awfully good at it.As for where it all leads, maybe the answer is nowhere. Newsom’s counterpunch may be just another distraction as the nation falls into authoritarianism right before our eyes.The historian and author Garrett Graff wrote this week in his Doomsday Scenario newsletter that we’re already there: “The United States, just months before its 250th birthday as the world’s leading democracy, has tipped over the edge into authoritarianism and fascism … faster than I imagined possible.”Can strong leadership and a decisive, blue-wave vote in 2026’s midterms and 2028’s presidential election yank America back up?If so, radical change is necessary. Newsom’s approach – if combined with a strong, clear message of economic populism – could be a part of that.It could end up being not just funny but crucially important.Given where things stand, it’s worth a try.

      Margaret Sullivan is a Guardian US columnist writing on media, politics and culture More

    • 175 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      What the Democrats can learn from Gavin Newsom’s Trump mockery | Katrina vanden Heuvel

      by

      Gavin Newsom’s recent mockery of Donald Trump proves that imitation isn’t always the sincerest form of flattery. Amid the ongoing battle over congressional redistricting, Newsom’s pitch-perfect posts about Trump’s “TINY HANDS” and California’s “PERFECT MAPS” have been wildly entertaining, and, at least by one measure, wildly successful – the posts have garnered millions of views and counting.While it’s refreshing to see a prominent Democrat unapologetically standing up to the current administration, Newsom’s jabs also reinforce the staying power of Trump’s blustery and incoherent style. And they reveal the degree to which the attention economy has disrupted our focus and degraded our language.Trump continues to benefit from the steady decline in the American attention span driven by social media. His style of short, punchy, inflammatory language – and his strategy of flooding the zone with a new federal freak show day after day – is engineered to succeed in this chaotic environment. But some recent online victories seem to indicate that progressives can also win on this battlefield if they deploy the right combination of profane style and policy substance.It’s possible the Trump era would never have been inaugurated without the concurrent smartphone era reshaping attention spans and media habits. One survey has found that Americans check their phones an astonishing 144 times daily, and about 40% of adults report being “almost constantly online”. As a result, Americans are reading less. In 2024, less than half of adults said they had picked up a book in the past year, continuing a consistent downward trend.The MSNBC journalist Chris Hayes has analyzed this regression in his book, The Sirens’ Call: How Attention Became the World’s Most Endangered Resource (a story that millions of Americans could benefit from understanding, if only they were still reading). He argues that the relentless competition for attention erodes thoughtful discourse while incentivizing the most thoughtless voices. It has contributed to mental health crises, the decline of journalism, and political polarization. It also fueled the rise of Donald Trump, who long ago proved himself to be a malignant savant of attention manipulation.Trump’s understanding of the new media ecosystem propelled all three of his presidential campaigns. In 2016, he received an estimated $5.6bn worth of free media. By that September, the word Americans associated the most with Hillary Clinton was “email”, while they connected Trump with “speech”, “president” and “immigration”.Fast forward to 2024, and he kept courting online attention with stunts such as working a choreographed 30-minute “shift” at McDonald’s. He dominated news media with mendacity which demanded journalistic coverage, such as his promotion of the xenophobic falsehood that Haitian migrants were eating Ohio pets. As Hayes wrote, Trump’s approach to politics over the last decade has been the “equivalent of running naked through the neighborhood: repellent but transfixing”.Now, Trump is not just benefiting from but intentionally accelerating these reversals. He has defunded and harassed leading research universities, censored historical exhibits at museums, and created Truth Social – an imitation of Twitter that has emerged as a playground for conspiracy theorists.He is attempting the governmental equivalent of a lobotomy.These setbacks have led progressives to increasingly understand that electoral victory requires digital dominance. And squaring up with Trump on social media appears a prerequisite for rallying the public around any political vision. As one strategist put it while praising Newsom’s Trump impersonation: “Democrats are over being the ‘nice guy’ party.”Already, there is some delightful needling of the right easily found in the proverbial social media haystack. The streamer Hasan Piker has been described as a “gateway drug” for progressive politics, while his engaging brand of explicit quips led GQ to name him “the hottest left-wing political commentator online”. When Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez streamed herself playing the game Among Us with Piker before the 2020 election, she almost broke a livestreaming record on the Twitch platform, drawing about 440,000 concurrent viewers.Elected Democrats are also taking off their virtual gloves. The Illinois governor, JB Pritzker, responded to Trump’s renaming of the Gulf of Mexico by threatening to rechristen Lake Michigan “Lake Illinois”. In an example of game respecting game, Zohran Mamdani’s strategy of speaking directly to voters through social media received unlikely praise from Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Taylor Greene. Greene is less a fan of the Texas representative Jasmine Crockett, who went viral for describing Greene as having a “bleach blond, bad-built, butch body”. And in Maine, the oysterman and Democratic US Senate candidate Graham Platner is drawing headlines for a pugnacious campaign launch video in which he declares: “The difference between Susan Collins and Ted Cruz is at least Ted Cruz is honest about selling us out and not giving a damn.”Still, talking the talk also requires walking the walk by implementing bold, authentically progressive initiatives. One of Newsom’s Trump-mocking posts announced an aggressive redistricting plan to counter Republican gerrymandering in Texas. Bernie Sanders has endorsed that move, just as he endorsed Mamdani, whose affordability agenda represents another ambitious stance to match pugilistic rhetoric.Otherwise, adhering to the philosophy of “when they go low, we go high” risks failing to meet voters where they are. It seems Americans seek a fighter on their behalf and at their side.“THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER.” More

    • 113 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      US to ‘root out anti-Americanism’ in reviewing immigration applications

      by

      The Trump administration said on Tuesday that it will look for “anti-American” views, including on social media, when assessing the applications of people wanting to live in the United States.In an announcement, US Citizenship and Immigration Services, which handles requests to stay in the United States or become a citizen, said it would expand vetting of the social media postings of applicants and that “reviews for anti-American activity will be added to that vetting”.“America’s benefits should not be given to those who despise the country and promote anti-American ideologies,” said agency spokesperson Matthew Tragesser. “US Citizenship and Immigration Services is committed to implementing policies and procedures that root out anti-Americanism and supporting the enforcement of rigorous screening and vetting measures to the fullest extent possible. Immigration benefits – including to live and work in the United States – remain a privilege, not a right.”The US Immigration and Nationality Act, which dates back to 1952, defines anti-Americanism, which at the time primarily focused on communists.Since taking office in January, the Trump administration has moved aggressively to deny or rescind short-term visas for people deemed to go against US foreign policy interests, especially on Israel.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe latest guidance on immigration decisions said that authorities will also look at whether applicants “promote anti-Semitic ideologies”.The Trump administration has accused students and universities of antisemitism over protests against Israel’s war in the Gaza Strip, charges denied by the activists.In April, the administration revoked or changed the legal status of hundreds of international students, only to reinstate them several weeks later. In May, student visa interviews were temporarily halted, and then, in June, new social media vetting measures were introduced for international students applying to study in the US.Under the new measures, US diplomats are directed to review applicants’ social media profiles to look for “any indications of hostility toward the citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles of the United States” before issuing visas.On Monday, the state department said it had revoked 6,000 student visas since the secretary of state, Marco Rubio, took office in January. It said that 4,000 of the cases involved violations of the law – “the vast majority being assault, DUI, burglary and support for terrorism” a state department official said. More

    • 175 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      The Trump administration has decided coal is female – here’s why | Arwa Mahdawi

      by

      Have you ever tossed and turned at night wondering what the correct pronouns are for a lump of coal? No, me neither. However, it seems someone at the US Department of Energy has devoted a few spare brain cells to this matter and decided that coal is a she/her.Co-opting a phrase adopted by the LGBTQ+ community, the official energy department X account tweeted on 31 July: “She’s an icon. She’s a legend. And she is the moment,” alongside a sparkling picture of coal. This comes as the Trump administration devotes considerable energy to making fossil fuels great again. The president has signed numerous executive orders aimed at “Reinvigorating America’s Beautiful Clean Coal Industry” and reversed Biden-era pollution regulations on coal-fired power plants. These plants, according to a 2023 report, killed at least 460,000 Americans over the past two decades. Deaths declined when the environmental regulations that Donald Trump is so scornful of were put in place.Why is the Trump administration, which seems to think women are objects, so keen on personifying coal? Is it for poetic effect? Or are they trying to sanitise the deadly impact of coal pollution and associate it with mother nature? I suspect the second motive. Ships, for example, have traditionally been referred to as “she”, possibly because sailors saw them as a maternal protector. Countries can also be classified as female – particularly when a man thinks their violent actions need to be defended. In 2023, shortly after the 7 October attacks, at a time when Gaza was being bombed and blockaded by Israel, Keir Starmer said Israel had “the right to defend herself”.Then again, sometimes the short answer to why things are unnecessarily gendered is simply “lazy sexism”. For a long time, Atlantic hurricanes were given only female names. When feminists started to challenge this in the 1980s, some people argued that storms would be taken seriously only if they evoked female fury. Years after meteorologists finally changed the policy, a 1986 Washington Post editorial lamented: “Somehow many of the male names don’t convey either the romance or the urgency that circumstances might warrant.” This has been much debated and it’s not clear whether gendering a storm makes any difference to public safety. As for the weird social media post gendering coal? It feels like a smokescreen to get people chattering online as the world burns. Arwa Mahdawi is a Guardian columnist More