General Mills recently announced it will eliminate all artificial dyes from its U.S. product line by the end of 2027. The company also made a commitment to remove them from school food service offerings by summer 2026. This decision follows similar moves by Kraft Heinz and aligns with a broader FDA push—backed by Health Secretary RFK Jr.—to phase out petroleum-based food colorings due to health concerns.

Context and Trigger Event

The MAHA agenda, an offshoot of the populist-right’s broader demand for institutional accountability, focuses on rooting out harmful chemicals from consumer goods, emphasizing transparency, and confronting corporate complacency. Announcements from companies like General Mills suggest food manufacturers are responding to pressure both from regulators and politically engaged consumers.

There is a growing trend in mainstream public discourse pushing corporations into public reversals. The rapid online response makes clear that voters interpret this as a political event. Hashtags like #MAHA and slogans like “This is Winning!” are frequent in conversations celebrating the outcome. On the right, this MAHA win is hailed as evidence that grassroots energy can translate into real change.

Sentiment Breakdown

MIG Reports analysis shows majority support for MAHA:

• 67% support removing artificial dye from foods, crediting MAHA for the change
• 33% criticize the move as symbolic, distracting, or ideologically hollow

Supportive Reactions

Those in favor view the change as a long-overdue concession to common sense. Many highlight the alleged links between synthetic dyes and behavioral, neurological, or immune system harm—particularly in children.

They praise RFK Jr. for forcing the issue onto the national stage and compelling corporations to act. The tone in these posts is triumphant, full of language tied to grassroots victories and anti-establishment justice. Voters draw a line from this corporate response to broader battles they believe MAHA will take on next—vaccines, transparency in labeling, pharmaceutical lobbying.

Critical Reactions

Skeptics argue the dye removal is an empty gesture wrapped in self-congratulatory slogans. These voices warn that food safety reforms, while important, are being used to obscure deeper failures like inflation, war, immigration, and tax burdens.

Some mock MAHA as a “cult” and accuse it of pushing pseudo-scientific agendas under the guise of health advocacy. Others point to RFK Jr.’s alliances and ideological inconsistencies, casting doubt on the authenticity of the initiative.

Criticism often comes from disillusioned former supporters who once believed in the broader MAHA platform but now see it as diluted, compromised, or unserious. Their frustration stems from a gap between MAHA’s message and its delivery on promises.

Themes Emerging from Supporters

For supporters, the dye removal is proof that sustained public pressure can upend corporate inertia. Many view it as the first domino in a broader transformation of American consumer culture. What resonates most is the symbolism of a multinational food giant forced to concede to a populist health campaign.

Three dominant themes emerge in pro-MAHA commentary:

• Corporate Accountability: General Mills’ decision is framed as a precedent-setter—an example of Big Food being forced to listen. Supporters say this proves political messaging from outside the Beltway can force compliance.
• Health-Centered Patriotism: Many tie the removal of dyes to concerns over children’s health and neurological development, calling this a civic win.
• MAHA as a Cultural Identity: For many, MAHA is a new ideological identity that replaces legacy party frameworks. It emphasizes dignity, wellness, and transparency over corporate dominance and establishment silence.

The tone is often celebratory but urgent. There’s a belief that MAHA efforts are just the beginning. Supporters cite the need for more reform—cleaner labels, stricter standards, and fewer pharmaceutical loopholes.

The Israel-Iran conflict shatters a relatively unified consensus on foreign threats and alliance commitments. This exposes a bitterly divided coalition with irreconcilable views on war, sovereignty, and national interest.

A recent debate between Sen. Ted Cruz and Tucker Carlson encapsulates this internal conflict on the right. Cruz championed a defense of Israel and deterrence against Iran, while Carlson warns entanglements betray the core promise of “America First.” Both sides of the conservative base is questioning whether the new right will fail them.

MIG Reports data reflects this shift:

• Republicans are split between supporting Cruz’s position or Carlson’s.
• Meanwhile, 62% of all discussions suggest Trump’s rhetoric on the conflict risks dragging the U.S. into war.
• Sentiment is driven by anger at deception, fear of nuclear escalation, and a profound sense of betrayal by elected leaders.

The Cruz-Carlson Debate as a Flashpoint

The confrontation between Ted Cruz and Tucker Carlson accurately represents the ideological scaffolding of the two factions. Many perceive Cruz as taking a more neoconservative and Christian Zionist position. He says Iran is an existential threat, Israel is a vital ally, and U.S. credibility depends on forceful deterrence. His tone is assertive, using legacy doctrines of American primacy and moral clarity. He suggests inaction invites aggression while support for Israel is a test of American resolve.

Carlson represents a rapidly growing faction of populist conservatives who view foreign intervention as a betrayal of the American taxpayer and soldier. He frames the conflict as another elite-manufactured crisis—one that risks American blood and treasure for objectives detached from national interest. He sides with war-skeptic MAGA populism and post-9/11 restraint. He dismisses Israeli intelligence claims, mocks bipartisan saber-rattling, and warns that Washington is sleepwalking into another quagmire.

Online reactions are sharply divided:

• 45% of discussions align with Cruz, emphasizing, national defense, support for Israel, nuclear deterrence, and credibility abroad.
• 45% side with Carlson, driven by anti-interventionism, America First sentiment, and distrust of foreign entanglements and intelligence claims.
• 10% express ambivalence, often citing disillusionment with both sides, concern over escalation without clear facts, desire for domestic focus.

This dead-even split exposes the ideological fracture lines. However, the division concentrates in certain discussions and among certain demographics.

Factional Breakdown Within the Right

The MAGA right is sharply split on foreign policy. The Israel-Iran conflict seems to be driven by a values-based schism where older and Israel-loyal conservatives support siding with Israel—even if it means boots on the ground. Younger, Israel-critical conservatives are vehemently against U.S. intervention.

Interventionist Right

Israel supporters continue to anchor themselves in traditional Republican foreign policy, viewing military strength and alliance loyalty as core to American leadership.

They want to:

• Preserve U.S. credibility abroad
• Contain Iranian aggression
• Uphold a “moral obligation” to defend Israel

They use words like, “red lines,” “existential threat,” “defend our allies.” The demographic base is older conservatives, Christian Zionists, legacy GOP donors, and national security hawks.

Supporters see the conflict as a test of resolve. They fear hesitation will embolden Iran and destabilize regional power balances. While some are reflexively pro-Israel, others frame it through a Cold War lens—stop the enemy abroad or fight them later at home.

Protectionist Right

America First voters often reject the notion that U.S. interests are automatically served by involvement in Middle Eastern conflicts.

They want to:

• Reclaim constitutional war powers
• Prioritize domestic infrastructure, economy, and sovereignty
• Avoid elite-driven “proxy wars”

They use rhetoric like, “No more endless wars,” “Zionist lobbying,” “foreign entanglements.” This demographic base is MAGA populists, younger conservatives, paleoconservatives, and libertarians.

This group is more likely to align with Carlson’s viewpoint. They may or may not be anti-Israel, but they are anti-war. They frame intervention as a betrayal of Trump-era promises to put American interests first. For many, the specter of Iraq and Afghanistan looms large—and the belief that D.C. elites haven’t learned anything only hardens their opposition.

Disillusioned and Betrayed Populists

Beyond ideological camps, there’s a growing emotional undercurrent of betrayal from voters who once backed Trump but now feel abandoned.

Common grievances:

• “We didn’t elect Trump to be another Bush”
• “He’s following Israel’s orders, not America’s interests”
• “They lied to us again—same playbook as 2003”

pic.twitter.com/rum7wFcFMX

— ☀️ Jon Schwarz ☀️ (@schwarz) June 17, 2025

They express rage, distrust, and grief. Most of this group is formerly MAGA, now politically homeless or openly critical.

This is the most volatile faction. Their anger comes across as existential. These voters feel manipulated and deceived. Some openly accuse Trump of capitulating to Israeli pressure or that they no longer trust his leadership. What binds them is a sense of betrayal from the political figures they once trusted.

Emotional Landscape and Rhetorical Themes

The emotional state of the discourse as tensions rise is tense. Many reactions are intensely personal, driven by anger, fear, and disillusionment.

• Anger: Directed at political elites, intelligence agencies, and what many describe as “Zionist control” or “uniparty warhawks.”
• Fear: Of nuclear war, mass casualties, economic collapse, and loss of national control.
• Betrayal: Toward Trump, the GOP, and even Israel, for pulling the U.S. into another avoidable catastrophe.

This intensity bleeds into the language used across social platforms:

• Memes and mockery: “Iran is a parking lot” jokes, “crashing out” slang, and WWII analogies.
• Moral outrage: “You lied about WMDs, and now you're lying about Iran.”
• Calls for restraint: “No American blood for foreign borders,” “Fight for Ohio, not Tel Aviv.”

Discussions are a battlefield of emotional signaling and vehement criticism. Loyalty is being tested not only to leaders, but to the narratives those leaders represent. For a growing segment of conservatives, especially younger voices, foreign policy is becoming more about identity than policy.

Ideological Inversions

Ideological boundaries have fractured:

• MAGA voters split internally as some back Carlson's restraint narrative, while others accuse him of weakness and betrayal.
• Christian conservatives remain largely aligned with Cruz, but younger evangelicals express skepticism about permanent alliances and foreign aid.
• Libertarian-leaning conservatives push for constitutional limits on executive power, calling out undeclared wars and shadow diplomacy.

This inversion has created new hybrid blocs:

• Post-Trump noninterventionists who reject both neoconservatism and Trump-era drift
• Energy nationalists who frame the conflict in terms of global oil markets and domestic production
• Cultural populists who oppose foreign war not from pacifism, but because they see it as a distraction from internal cultural collapse

There is both a generational divide and chaotic ideological reshuffling. Foreign policy is only the proving ground for new identities and political litmus tests.

Strategic and Political Consequences

The fallout could easily reshape conservative politics. Foreign policy now threatens to realign the GOP's base and the future of MAGA support.

Key implications:

• Trump faces growing backlash from his own base. The perception that he is yielding to Israeli influence undermines his image as a nationalist independent.
• Republican primary challengers may frame foreign policy restraint as the new moral center of the post-MAGA movement.
• Think tanks, influencers, and online personalities are recalibrating—testing how far they can criticize Israel without alienating donors or the evangelical bloc.

In strategic terms:

• Carlson-style populists want to reassert Congress’s role in war powers and audit all foreign aid, especially to Israel.
• Cruz-aligned leaders argue that retreat is weakness, and that American strength demands visible alliance commitments.

The coming months will test which narrative dominates. If the Carlson faction grows, expect a sharper pivot toward non-interventionism across right-wing media and political platforms. If Cruz's position holds, the GOP may default to its older reflexes—military readiness, alliance loyalty, and the language of deterrence.

The assassination of MI Rep. Melissa Hortman and the attempted murder of Sen. John Hoffman have triggered a volatile public response. Voters call for an end to political violence, but many discussions fracture into blame, conspiracy, and demands for sweeping accountability.

For conservatives, the broader takeaway is that Democrats are positioning the incident as a wedge to silence dissent and accelerate their rhetorical war on the right. The loudest voices on the leftare indicting Trump voters as accessories to political murder. The political class is leveraging the tragedy, not uniting a fractured nation.

Voter Sentiments

Public discourse surrounding the shooting reflects:

• 40% call for an end to political violence, often invoking appeals to civility and constitutional norms.
• 20% discuss conspiracy theories tied to a supposed hit list, which included high-profile Democrats and abortion rights leaders.
• 20% blame political rhetoric, especially from Trump and MAGA-aligned figures, for creating a climate of violence.
• 20% demand structural accountability—resignations, leadership purges, or systemic reform.

These segments are not mutually exclusive, but they capture the fragmented emotional climate. Calls for peace coexist with demands for partisan punishment. Moderation, as usual, is lost in the noise.

Framing the Incident

The political left immediately defines the shooting as a targeted attack on democracy by far-right extremism. Hortman’s death is stylized as martyrdom. Progressives cite the shooter’s alleged ties to Trumpism and his supposed manifesto as proof that conservative rhetoric leads to bloodshed. They label the murder “political terrorism,” ignoring the shooter’s more complicated ideological profile. The event became a rallying cry for the “No Kings” movement over the same weekend.

The right is mostly skeptical. Many conservatives view the progressive response as opportunistic, aimed at silencing dissent. There’s growing concern that Hortman was targeted in part because she voted against party lines—including a notable vote to repeal healthcare for illegal aliens. In that light, her murder raises uncomfortable questions about intra-party purity and the growing radicalization of the activist left.

Conspiracy narratives are abundant. Some argue the shooting was an internal purge disguised as a partisan assassination. Others insist Democrats are exaggerating the threat to justify future crackdowns. The shooter’s political leanings are inconsistently reported, fueling suspicions. Neither side trusts the narrative coming from the other, and both believe the country is one provocation away from collapse.

Political Consequences and Voter Interpretations

Progressives label Hortman's assassination as an act of political terror, saying the shooter had far-right associations and an ideological motive. But online discourse also suggests internal conflict on both sides.

Many on draw attention to Hortman’s voting record, particularly her support for repealing state healthcare coverage for illegal immigrants. This position, which aligned her with Republicans on a high-profile immigration issue, is repeatedly cited as a likely reason for her being placed on a hit list. Some claim her vote marked her as “against the party’s pro-illegal immigration stance,” provoking backlash from activists.

REPORT: Shortly before Minnesota Rep. Melissa Hortman was shot and k*lled, she broke down in tears in front of cameras after siding with Republicans.

Hortman was the lone Democrat who voted to cut health care access for adult illegal immigrants.

"I did what leaders do... I… pic.twitter.com/tpqUe0LRaZ

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) June 14, 2025

Among grassroots Democrats and left-aligned protestors, internal tension is not widely acknowledged. But in conservative circles, the narrative that Hortman was murdered solely because she was a Democrat is false. They tend to say she was targeted because she wasn’t Democrat enough. The idea that her willingness to break with the party made her expendable to ideological purists shifts the political meaning of the event.

Tone, Language, and Rhetorical Trends

Liberal rhetoric portrays Hortman as a martyr of the Trump era, her death a byproduct of escalating right-wing extremism. Language frames her as a victim of hate, a casualty of a poisoned national discourse. But this framing omits inconvenient details, raising suspicions about the truth of the situation.

On the right, the tone is strategic. Conservative voices emphasize inconsistencies in the narrative. Many question whether her moderation was politically inconvenient, and her death is being rebranded to serve a narrative that contradicts her actual record.

The recent wave of anti-ICE demonstrations and anti-Trump “No Kings” protest don't seem to shift public sentiment. Reactions to the protests suggest conservative support for deportation policies is firming and liberals see them as resistance to federal overreach.

Many on the right view the protests as coordinated, Democratic and foreign-funded attacks on law enforcement and national sovereignty. Rather than influencing opinions, the unrest in LA and other cities is solidifying existing views of immigration and reinforcing support for President Trump’s hardline enforcement approach.

Change in Sentiment Over the Last Week

Public sentiment has not meaningfully shifted in the week since the protests began. If anything, sentiment among politically engaged voters has become more resolute. Instead of provoking reevaluation, the protests have crystallized opposing worldviews—pushing voters further into existing camps.

There is no broad reassessment of ICE policy or Trump’s actions. Instead, the unrest serves as a symbolic inflection point where conservatives say it confirms immigration enforcement is under siege, while progressives say it threatens constitutional rights.

The effect of these protests is consolidation, not persuasion. The left is louder but not larger. Online discussions, media narratives, and political influencers push Trump criticism, but the numbers don’t suggest any erosion of pro-enforcement support.

Support for Deportations and Trump’s ICE Actions

MIG Reports data confirms that support for immigration enforcement remains solid, particularly among conservatives. Sentiment has not fractured under pressure from protest optics or media framing. Instead, the most consistent reaction is expressing confidence in Trump’s approach to deportation and law enforcement.

• 47% support deportation enforcement efforts.
• 33% oppose ICE, often linking it to excessive force or procedural abuse.
• 20% hold neutral or mixed views, with many expressing legal uncertainty.

Real-time metrics show a coherent and stable base of support for Trump’s immigration posture. Those backing deportations frame the issue as one of national integrity and legal obligation. They reject the idea that enforcement is inherently political, instead treating it as the restoration of a neglected constitutional duty.

Critics fail to offer a compelling counterweight. Their arguments—centered on humanitarianism or rule-of-law violations—do not appear to resonate beyond their own base. Calls for moderation or reform seem to have little weight in the current climate. Many view Trump's decisions, including deploying ICE and National Guard resources, as pragmatic, lawful, and long overdue.

Are Protests Funded or Inorganic?

Discussion of the planned “No Kings” protests, prior to June 14, does not treat them as organic expressions of public outrage. Instead, many conservative voices frame the demonstrations as coordinated and professionally engineered operations aimed at undermining lawful immigration enforcement and delegitimizing the Trump administration.

• 35% of discussions related to the protests explicitly view them as orchestrated by well-funded groups and political actors, not grassroots movements.
• There are claims that the protests are “DNC-funded,” “NGO-backed,” or “paid agitator” operations.
• Many reference foreign flags, pre-made signage, bricks being delivered, and protester logistics as evidence of staging.
• Some assert that the protests serve as media bait designed to portray ICE enforcement as authoritarian.

A large portion of Americans argue these demonstrations are being used to provoke federal overreach, destabilize the public, or generate an authoritarian backlash narrative. They suggest Democrats and their allied nonprofits are counting on chaos that will translate into political capital. For conservatives, this possibility strengthens their resolve to press forward with enforcement.

Left vs. Right

Reactions to the protests reveal a binary moral framing with little room for nuance. Each side operates with fundamentally different assumptions about law, legitimacy, and the role of federal power.

Right-leaning perspectives

• View the protests as chaotic, foreign-influenced, and anti-American.
• Frame deportation as a legal necessity and ICE as a frontline agency defending national sovereignty.
• Dismiss liberal outrage as performative and detached from the real dangers posed by uncontrolled immigration.

Left-leaning perspectives

• View the protests as essential resistance against authoritarian encroachment.
• Portray ICE and Trump’s enforcement actions as unconstitutional and morally indefensible.
• Emphasize civil liberties, humanitarian concern, and racial equity as driving principles.

These diverging worldviews mostly reinforce themselves. For many, each protest, each ICE raid, and each viral video confirms preexisting moral allegiance. The right believes the more violent protests become, the more justified the enforcement appears. On the left, the escalation confirms fears of democratic erosion. There is little crossover—and no signs of convergence.

Perceived Effectiveness of the Protests

While the protests generate attention, they are not universally seen as effective or legitimate in purpose.

• Right-leaning voices: Overwhelmingly dismiss the protests as theatrics, not meaningful resistance.
• Left-leaning voices: Defend the protests on symbolic grounds, even if practical outcomes remain elusive.
• Independent and skeptical observers: Question whether the protests will lead to any concrete change or if they simply damage communities and cost money.

Among conservatives, there is a consistent belief that protests will not influence policy, but will creating negative optics, particularly for Democrats like Gavin Newsom. Many say protests are only mean for provocation and to bait federal overreach and cast Trump as the villain.

Even among some on the left, there’s quiet frustration about the lack of strategic clarity and negative publicity. The protests claim moral energy but offer no cohesive policy alternative. As a result, the discourse remains gridlocked.

Media and Messaging Framing

Narratives around the No Kings protests and ICE enforcement actions are shaped as much by media portrayal as by the events themselves. Both sides accuse the press of manipulation—though for different reasons.

Conservative perspectives

• Accuse mainstream outlets of glamorizing protest violence while ignoring law enforcement restraint.
• Argue the media selectively amplifies footage that portrays ICE and Trump in the worst possible light.
• View legacy press as aligned with progressive messaging, crafting a narrative of authoritarianism to sabotage immigration control.

Liberal perspectives

• Claim media coverage whitewashes federal abuses and centers too heavily on property damage instead of civil rights.
• Argue both corporate and state-linked outlets downplay the moral gravity of raids and deportations.
• Use social media to circumvent traditional channels, often sharing unverified but emotionally charged content.

This mutual distrust results in two incompatible storylines. For right-leaning analysts and voters, the press is complicit in the ideological campaign against national sovereignty. For progressives, media silence or misdirection signals a failure to hold power accountable.

As tensions surge between Israel and Iran, American voters are expressing alarm. According to many reports, Israel is preparing for a military strike on Iran and U.S. embassies in the Middle East are evacuating personnel. Americans are bracing for fallout.

Trump’s second-term foreign policy—marked by restrained military engagement but vocal opposition to a nuclear Iran—has triggered fierce online debate. The Iran-Israel standoff is becoming a test of American sovereignty, political trust, and the legitimacy of long-standing alliances.

Voter Sentiment

American sentiment on how President Trump is handing the Israel-Iran situation is split:

• 45% of overall discussions support President Trump’s cautious approach, favoring troop withdrawals and diplomatic hedging.
• 55% oppose it, driven by fears of escalation, distrust of Israeli influence, or belief that Trump is either complicit or weak.

When dividing conversation between parties, Republicans overwhelmingly support Trump’s foreign policy (70/30) and Democrats overwhelmingly oppose it (80/20).

• Protests are preemptively being planned by anti war activists and conservative populists alike, should Trump approve a military strike.
• Some voters openly call for shutting down cities or organizing national boycotts if Israel proceeds and America follows.
• Several online threads warn of a domestic backlash if Americans are drawn into another foreign conflict without clear congressional authorization.

Conservative Sentiment

Roughly 70% of conservatives posting online defend Trump’s strategy. They praise his restraint, view Israeli aggression as Israel’s responsibility, and argue America should avoid another entangling war. These voices echo Trump’s “America First” doctrine, insisting the U.S. has nothing to gain by policing the Middle East.

However, around 30% of right-leaning voices express criticism. They accuse Trump of ceding American decision-making to Israel, with warnings that “if Trump bombs Iran, I’m out.” This isolationist faction is increasingly vocal, angry, and highly engaged online. Their critique emphasizes a sense of betrayal if America gets dragged into war. Some criticize America’s allegiance with Israel entirely, arguing support would be a violation of Trump’s America First agenda.

Liberal and Centrist Sentiment

Liberals and centrists overwhelmingly reject Trump’s tactics—about 80% disapprove. They say he’s erratic, self-serving, and potentially disastrous. Many claim he is using the crisis to distract from domestic problems or shore up support from pro-Israel political donors.

The few who offer qualified approval mention U.S. embassy evacuations and signals of non-engagement. But even among these voices, support is tepid and driven by fear of what a wider war could bring.

Key Themes in Discourse

Distrust of the U.S.-Israel Relationship

Accusations that Israel is calling the shots in Washington dominate both left-leaning and conservative discourse. Voters describe the alliance as parasitic, not strategic. Many accuse Trump of “letting Israel dictate policy,” framing Israel as a liability, not an ally.

Fear of Escalation and Economic Fallout

The most common concern is rapid escalation. Voters invoke “World War III,” anticipate $400/barrel oil, and warn of retaliatory strikes on American bases. Isolationist conservatives and anti-war progressives converge on the message, “This isn’t our fight.”

Skepticism of Pretexts and WMD Claims

A powerful undercurrent compares rhetoric about Iran’s nuclear program to the run-up to the Iraq War. Many do not believe Iran poses an imminent threat. They say, “prove it or shut up” on both sides. Americans are done taking intelligence agencies or foreign governments at their word.

Foreign Policy Realignment

The crisis is drawing calls for a full reassessment of America’s strategic priorities. Many comments demand that Congress reevaluate military aid to Israel, review intelligence sharing agreements, and prevent further unilateral executive war powers. Voters want clear lines of accountability—before missiles fly.

Rage and Radicalization

The tone is incendiary. Accusations of genocide, false-flag operations, and foreign blackmail pepper the conversation. Cynicism is deep on both sides. Voters increasingly suspect that decisions are driven by elite distractions, foreign lobbying, and permanent Washington’s hunger for control.

Political Repercussions

Trump’s coalition is under strain. His base remains intact but splinters at the edges when it comes to foreign policy. Isolationist conservatives see the Iran-Israel conflict as a breaking point. Independent voters remain skeptical and conflicted. They voice fears of economic instability, global escalation, and executive overreach.

On the left, the crisis is used to highlight what they frame as authoritarianism, militarism, and foreign influence over American institutions. But even among Democrats, there’s discomfort with the level of deference traditionally shown to Israel—marking a significant cultural shift.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is beginning to overcome early skepticism about his IRS downsizing to full-throated approval following Treasury revenue gains. Many conservatives see Bessent’s results as a proof-of-concept for technocratic reform within a MAGA framework.

Critics of @POTUS’ efforts to modernize the IRS warned that the effort would result in a 10% shortfall in receipts.

Instead, the opposite happened.

April receipts this year were up 9.5% over the previous year. And receipts in May were up 14.7% over the previous year.

Most… pic.twitter.com/08OUqRDolj

— Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent (@SecScottBessent) June 11, 2025

Public sentiment toward Bessent is increasing with positive news this week, despite criticism from Democrats. He has become a policy executor as well as a cultural symbol perceived as smart, non-performative, and politically effective.

Voter Sentiment Trends

MIG Reports data shows Bessent's approval trajectory is on the rise:

• In the last three days, public sentiment has increased from 42% to 47%.
• Discussions around taxation, Trump’s Cabinet, and monetary policy all hover around 45%.
• In the last week, top discussion topics mentioning Bessent include Trump’s Cabinet, fiscal policy, trade, and taxation.
• Sentiment in his top eight topics are all above 40%.

Even with confrontations during Bessent's House testimony on Treasury priorities, many voters criticize Democrats like Del. Stacey Plaskett.

Excuse you!! This twat, cunt, pum pum whatever you want to call it represents an organ that gives LIFE and is resilienr so thanks for the compliment. I can take one interruption but Bessent was out of control. And…. I know I look good for my age but baby I’m post menopausal and… https://t.co/04jSJPVknP

— Rep. Stacey Plaskett (@StaceyPlaskett) June 11, 2025

Narrative and Meme Realignment

Narrative Control Flip

In recent online discussions among Democrats and those on the left, sentiment skews negative. They criticize how Bessent is handling the Big Beautiful Bill (BBB), fearing IRS layoffs would cripple revenue enforcement. Those themes peaked around June 6 but are eroding with Bessent's announcement showing strong revenue returns.

Bessent’s supporters now tout the Treasury’s release of April (+9.5%) and May (+14.7%) tax revenue growth, using it to pivot from “reckless” to “reformer.” Even Axios coverage accelerates the narrative shift, with the headline framing Bessent as “delivering results under pressure.” The positivity is particularly strong among fiscal conservatives. They see Bessent as competent and making conservative governance work.

Meme Culture and Linguistic Tone

Meme trends provide a further window into cultural repositioning. Earlier sarcastic slogans such as “One Big Beautiful Scam” and “Budget Axe Barbie” have been overtaken by celebratory or taunting phrases like:

• “Audit This”
• “Receipts > Rhetoric”
• “He Bessented Them”
• “Fewer Agents, More Money”

These shifts bolster Bessent’s persona online, evolving from faceless functionary to cultural weapon. Linguistically, the use of assertive verbs like “delivered,” “dismantled,” “restructured” now dominate supportive discussion.

Policy Substance Driving Approval

IRS Modernization and the Revenue Windfall

The Trump administration’s IRS overhaul is the keystone of Bessent’s rising credibility. While the political left forecasted disaster following mass IRS staffing cuts, the Treasury’s May receipts show robust growth. Bessent’s claim—that AI-assisted auditing and tech upgrades would outperform headcount expansion—is being validated in both numerical and narrative terms.

His June testimony before the House further solidifies support. When Bessent stated, “We don’t need 87,000 agents—we need smart enforcement,” it was immediately clipped and memed, especially across Trump-aligned audiences.

One Big Beautiful Bill

Trump’s BBB remains divisive. The bill’s failure to remove taxes on Social Security and tips generated early backlash. But online rhetoric has cooled. Supporters see the BBB as “a tactical half-measure” or “first phase reform,” using it as justification for continued support rather than a dealbreaker.

Debt Limit Messaging Advantage

Bessent’s revenue success pushes the X-date further into the summer, giving the administration some budgetary breathing room. Internal discourse in conservative financial circles describes Bessent as a “calm strategist.” The delay itself becomes part of the approval surge—a signal that Treasury is under control.

Cultural and Symbolic Role

Bessent is now positioned as an anti-DEI success story. Right-leaning voters increasingly cite him as an example of how inclusion doesn’t need to be performative to be effective. Many acknowledge his openly gay and financially elite identity status, but argue these characteristics don’t matter. Instead, supporters press for “Merit first, labels last.”

Those who defend Bessent online contrast him with more bombastic or ideologically driven officials. They say things like, “While others are lecturing, Bessent is cashing the checks.” The alleged Musk-Bessent spat, once fodder for criticism, has faded. In its place is a sentiment that perhaps Bessent was right.

Positioning Within the Cabinet and Beyond

The buzz around Bessent’s next move is growing. His name is circulating as a potential Federal Reserve Chair nominee or head of a consolidated economic reform council. His unique appeal—part policy hawk, part anti-bureaucracy operative—makes him a natural fit for continued leadership.

The administration sees him as an asset in the fiscal messaging war. The Trump base sees him as proof that results matter more than showmanship. A strategic elevation could lock in both camps.

An online scuffle between Simone Biles and Riley Gaines riles up the debate about women’s sports and bullying.

Biles' recent criticism of Gaines—who has become a vocal opponent of transgender inclusion in women’s athletics—ignites a sharp backlash online. Public sentiment among politically engaged Americans overwhelming support in Gaines’ favor.

bully someone your own size, which would ironically be a male @Riley_Gaines_

— Simone Biles (@Simone_Biles) June 6, 2025

American Sentiment

Support leans heavily in favor of Gaines and preventing transgender athletes from competing in women’s sports.

• 70% of reactions express criticism toward Biles, both for her stance on transgender athletes and the perception of hypocritical bullying.
• 70% support or defend Riley Gaines, aligning with her desire to protect women.
• 25% link the debate to issues of fairness, trans rights, and cultural decay.

The numbers suggest this topic resonates deeply with Americans who are becoming more vocal about women’s sports. The reactions align with previous MIG Reports data showing this as a strong, bipartisan issue.

Gaines as Defender of Fairness

Riley Gaines increasingly emerges as the face of athletic fairness. Her advocacy resonates because it comes from within the system. As a former collegiate swimmer forced to compete against trans-identifying male athletes, Gaines channels firsthand frustration into a broader argument that women are under siege by political ideologues who conflate inclusion with equity.

Online commentary describes Gaines as principled, courageous, and grounded. She is viewed as a key figure defending women. In these discussions, Gaines becomes a symbol of resistance to institutional capture. Critics, largely from progressive or legacy media circles, view her as controversial, calling her names and criticizing her swimming record.

Simone Biles when she had to endure a predatory man

Vs

Simone Biles when other girls have to endure predatory men pic.twitter.com/8p9D51seYr

— Riley Gaines (@Riley_Gaines_) June 7, 2025

Biles Becoming a Political Lightning Rod

As a decorated Olympic athlete, Simone Biles has long been praised by all Americans. Her achievements are undeniable. But she has also drawn criticism for some of her actions as an athlete, and now for her foray into the gender policy debate. Her criticism of Gaines—however subtle—has triggered a rapid shift in how many on the right view her.

Among the 70% of critical posts, recurring sentiments include:

• “Stick to gymnastics”
• “Biles sold out fairness for woke points”
• “It’s hypocritical to bully Riley for looking ‘manly’”
• “Biles is closing the door behind her, now that her success if over”
• “Mental health retreat now looks like moral retreat”

The backlash underscores a growing impatience with celebrities who use their fame to enter divisive cultural debates, only to fall back on their accomplishments when challenged.

Here’s Simone Biles competing against a male gymnast and getting absolutely humiliated.

Is she sure she’s ok with men in women’s sports? pic.twitter.com/f3XvzSOH3U

— Based Bandita (@MissVega8888) June 7, 2025

Transgender Policy Versus Women’s Rights

This is not an isolated controversy. It’s a node in a larger clash over values. The redefinition of sex-based rights and the scope of government and media power is an ongoing debate.

Those defending Gaines consistently tie her cause to:

• Title IX preservation
• Fair competition
• Parental and women’s rights
• Valid pushback against coercive woke ideology

Her critics often deflect by elevating emotional or identity-based claims—an approach that increasingly fails to persuade a public which demands clarity and boundaries.

The Media's Role and Narrative Distortion

Legacy outlets largely ignore Gaines or cast her as divisive. Biles, meanwhile, receives soft coverage, often framed as a mental health icon rather than a political actor. This contrast fuels online perceptions that media elites protect their ideological allies and punish dissenters.

Among voters, this double standard reinforces a broader belief that the media no longer reports truth but serves a progressive agenda. Americans increasingly form opinions based on direct observation and peer discourse, not editorial framing.

Implications for the Political Right

Riley Gaines offers the GOP and the conservative movement a potent cultural figure who blends traditional values with youthful clarity. She’s articulate, morally grounded, and focused. Republicans looking to engage young voters—especially women—should see in her a strategic ally.

Simone Biles, once considered apolitical, now functions as a cautionary tale. Many feel that any number of medals cannot shield someone from public critique when they endorse policies that voters see as harmful. The right no longer defers to celebrity consensus.

The Los Angeles ICE protests damaged public trust in both state leadership and federal enforcement. Following chaos over the weekend, the story quickly became a national flashpoint, exposing the breakdown of institutional trust across party lines. Figureheads on both sides like Gavin Newsom and Tom Homan draw sharp criticism from the opposition.

Timeline and Trigger Events

The protests started as a response to a coordinated immigration enforcement campaign by the Trump administration. Discussion around deportations escalated as anti-ICE protesters took to the streets.

• Federal ICE actions spark backlash. Viral footage of arrests and aggressive enforcement tactics, fueling protests at detention centers and federal buildings.
• Protest optics intensify the narrative war. Rioters waving Mexican flags, chanting anti-American slogans, and destroying police cars. Creating national controversy.
• Allegations of coordination. Online discourse flags possible NGO involvement, raising suspicions that the protests are neither spontaneous nor civilian-driven.

The LA Riots are not organic pic.twitter.com/mChM0l0mVh

— Phil Holloway ✈️ (@PhilHollowayEsq) June 9, 2025

Trump moves swiftly:

• National Guard debate. Trump offers to send federal troops to support ICE operations and secure federal property, stirring hysteria among Democrats.
• Tom Homan goes scorched earth. Homan warns protestors obstructing enforcement: “You will be detained, and you will be deported.”

🚨#BREAKING: California Governor Gavin Newsom has just dared former ICE Director Tom Homan and President Trump to arrest him for allegedly aiding and abetting undocumented immigrants in the state. “Get your hands off these poor people, they’re just trying to live their lives and… pic.twitter.com/77jaGNw3cd

— R A W S A L E R T S (@rawsalerts) June 9, 2025

Newsom sentiment tanks:

• Newsom dares arrest. In a press event, Newsom declares, “Let them arrest me,” positioning himself as a martyr figure. But the performance draws more ridicule.
• Credibility collapses. As looting and street chaos spread, Newsom’s calls for calm appear disconnected from reality. Democrats and the media deny violence and vandalism, drawing incredulity from the public.

My statement on what's unfolding in Los Angeles. pic.twitter.com/rujs8mrVPK

— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) June 8, 2025

Online Reactions to the Protests

Public reactions are overwhelmingly negative, sweeping up Republican figures like Trump and Homan in negativity toward ICE. But liberal leaders like Gavin Newsom and LA Mayor Karen Bass are also receiving severe backlash.

There is outrage, fear, and exhaustion in public discussion. The debate over immigration enforcement exploded into a broader reckoning with civic order and national identity. Each ideological bloc responds according to its core worldview, but a shared undercurrent emerges that no one believes the system is functioning as it should.

On the right, people describe the events as “a riot by foreign nationals,” fueled by open borders policies and Democratic complicity. Footage of protestors waving Mexican flags, looting stores, and setting fire to federal property goes viral as outrage ramps up.

• Terms like “invasion,” “anarchy,” and “domestic terrorism” dominate right leaning discourse.
• There are renewed calls for mass deportations, ICE raids, and full use of federal authority, including the Insurrection Act.
• A subset of right-leaning voices glorifies vigilantism, invoking imagery from the 1992 LA riots—most notably the “Rooftop Koreans” meme.

Make Rooftop Koreans Great Again! pic.twitter.com/UFRhMPCYLb

— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) June 9, 2025

On the left, pundits frame the protests as moral resistance to an authoritarian crackdown. Activists and progressive influencers claim immigration enforcement is being used as a political weapon. Trump and Homan are cast as agents of state repression.

• The rhetoric shifts toward warnings of fascism and ethnic cleansing.
• Narratives emphasize historical injustices, with some claiming the land “was stolen from Mexico” and framing ICE as an occupying force.
• However, even among progressive circles, concerns emerge about the optics—particularly the aggressive imagery and potential alienation of swing voters.

The President of the United States just called for the arrest of a sitting Governor.

This is a day I hoped I would never see in America.

I don’t care if you’re a Democrat or a Republican this is a line we cannot cross as a nation — this is an unmistakable step toward… pic.twitter.com/tsTX1nrHAu

— Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) June 9, 2025

Among Independents and disengaged moderates, the response is more cynical. There is little support for the protest tactics, but there is equal skepticism toward state and federal responses.

• Many frame the protests as a breakdown of order caused by years of leadership failure.
• These voices often express disgust with both parties, seeing the entire incident as a sign that no one is in control.
• However, despite media and Democratic criticism, Trump’s public support on immigration is holding strong.

President Trump’s net approval on immigration has skyrocketed.

Turns out Americans like a president who defends Americans from illegals.pic.twitter.com/oxCoWY6K2O

— Paul A. Szypula 🇺🇸 (@Bubblebathgirl) June 9, 2025

Media and Democratic Response

Legacy media coverage of the ICE protests amplifies the fragmentation already visible in public sentiment. Progressive outlets frame the unrest as a justified reaction to heavy-handed federal enforcement or downplay it.

This clip is for all my L.A. friends who texted me tonight saying things like "I'm sure you know this, but 99.9% of LA is going about their Sunday normally" pic.twitter.com/9NwaRzMruK

— Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) June 9, 2025

Democratic leaders struggle to maintain narrative discipline. Gavin Newsom’s media appearances—ranging from defiant press conferences to vague condemnations of violence—land poorly. His now-infamous “let them arrest me” line is widely mocked, not only by conservatives but also by moderates who view it as theatrical and unserious.

Media coverage aligned with the Democratic establishment compounds the problem:

• Footage of foreign flags, looted businesses, and ICE buses under siege are ignored or reframed as “community pushback,” which alienates Californians.
• Conservative discourse highlights this as proof that the media is protecting the left, reinforcing accusations of a coordinated narrative shield.

Meanwhile, local Democratic figures scramble to convince the public that local law enforcement has everything under control.

JUST IN: California Rep. Judy Chu (D) says the LAPD has the situation in Los Angeles under control as MSNBC plays a split screen of multiple cars on fire.

Don't believe your lying eyes, folks. pic.twitter.com/z9lJUIuigZ

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) June 9, 2025

Even left-leaning voters grow restless. A subset of liberal voices warns that the party’s handling of the protests could cost them Independents and alienate working-class voters who fear rising disorder.

Ideological Narrative Split

Public discourse follows ideology, each side interpreting the same events according to predefined beliefs. Discourse is not a debate, but a tripartite split in how Americans perceive reality—each group assigns blame, defines legitimacy, and interprets violence in ways that reinforce its worldview.

For the Right, the protests validate long-held warnings about open borders, leftist chaos, and Democrat-run cities. They also view the riots as potentially astroturfed or coordinated by activist groups. The right mocks media coverage for downplaying threats and deliberately obscuring the facts on the ground.

Progressives elevate the protests as necessary resistance to a creeping authoritarian state. They view ICE as inherently illegitimate and see the federal response—particularly Trump’s use of the National Guard—as confirmation of a racist, fascist agenda. Their frustration does extend to liberal leaders like Newsom for doing nothing.

Independents increasingly express fatigue with the entire political structure. They see a system incapable of maintaining order or delivering truth. In their view, the media manipulates, elected officials posture, and the public pays the price.

Collapse of Leadership Symbols

The ICE protests accelerate a trend already in motion where American trust in leadership is quickly decaying. While both right and left leaning figures drew volatile responses, liberal leaders are getting the brunt of public anger.

Tom Homan and Gavin Newsom both took a sentiment hit after the weekend, but Newsom dropped to 35% support while Homan only fell to 41%.

Homan’s no-nonsense posture and unapologetic stance win praise from law-and-order voters who see the protests as taking advantage of soft law enforcement under Democrats. Gavin Newsom suffers stronger public wrath. His sentiment decline comes atop already-low trust levels. Newsom remains the poster child for failed governance—a man more concerned with optics than outcomes.

Broader Political Fallout

The fallout from anti-ICE protests extends far beyond California. Initially a localized confrontation, these events are causing the political class scrambling to reorient, but the public has already drawn conclusions.

On the right, the protests reignite calls for uncompromising immigration enforcement.

• Expect a surge in proposals for mass deportations, expanded ICE operations, and executive crackdowns on sanctuary cities.
• GOP-aligned influencers push the narrative that California has become a failed state—an emblem of what happens when ideology trumps enforcement.

On the left, the protests expose the limits of Democrats' grip on their own coalition.

• Democratic leaders struggle to control the messaging, caught between condemning disorder and signaling support for “the cause.”
• The fracture between party leadership and grassroots activists widens as activists want open confrontation while elected officials issue tepid statements.

This tension creates strategic confusion heading into the 2026 elections. Democrats risk alienating moderates who crave stability while failing to satisfy far left progressives.

Independents—already skeptical—grow more disillusioned.

• Online discussion among swing voters reflects a mix of fear and disgust, with phrases like “no one’s in charge” and “collapse of authority.”
• The longer the protests drag on without resolution, the more these voters drift toward any candidate promising decisive action, regardless of partisanship.

A public feud between Donald Trump and Elon Musk has shattered a once-powerful alliance, setting off a wave of political polarization that scandalizes all sides. According to Trump, the dispute started over revoking EV subsidies.

Musk’s explosive accusation that Trump appears in the Epstein files and Trump’s threat to cancel federal contracts with Musk’s companies have become a dominant topic among all voters online.

Trump: "I'm very disappointed because Elon knew the inner workings of this bill better than almost anybody. He had no problem with it. All of the sudden he had a problem, and he only developed the problem when he found out we're gonna have to the cut EV mandate ... he hasn't said… pic.twitter.com/mJvEAGXaly

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 5, 2025

While MAGA loyalists defend Trump’s actions, many independents and reform-minded Republicans are breaking ranks. Some see Musk as a cautionary figure, someone who gave money, effort, and institutional legitimacy to Trump’s campaign but is now being discarded for challenging fiscal orthodoxy.

MIG Reports data shows:

• 70% of Republican discussion defends Trump.
• 80% of liberal and independent comments condemn Trump’s behavior.
• In discussions of the “Big Beautiful Bill” (BBB), 70% support Trump and 30% express sympathy with Musk.
• Following the dispute, sentiment toward Elon dipped, while sentiment toward Trump rose.
• Criticism is directed at both figures, while most on the left express enjoyment in seeing the fallout.

Igniting the Fallout

This conflict emerged after Musk stepped away from his role in the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). But the introduction of Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill”—a massive spending package that slashes EV subsidies—began the drama.

Musk then escalated the conflict by publicly accusing Trump of appearing in the Epstein files, a move that electrified political media, stifling discussions of behind-the-scenes orchestration.

Feud timeline:

• DOGE: Musk leads fiscal reform efforts aimed at cutting waste and increasing efficiency. Conservatives rally around the program.
• Legislative reversal: Trump’s BBB boosts spending and guts key DOGE-aligned priorities like EV incentives.
• Public fallout: Musk responds with the Epstein accusation. Trump threatens to cancel federal contracts with Musk’s companies.
• Narrative collapse: Both figures abandon any pretense of alignment. Their feud becomes a stand-in for broader political questions.

The fallout occurs at a time of national disillusionment with institutional leadership. The public sees a breakdown in what was supposed to be a united front against bureaucratic rot. For many on the right, especially independents who voted for Trump and reform-oriented conservatives, the rift feels like betrayal. However, many also express their lack of surprise, asserting this was an inevitable outcome.

The Epstein Files Allegation

Elon Musk’s decision to publicly link Donald Trump to the Epstein files caused a major firestorm. Musk’s accusation triggers intense scrutiny and widespread division about the veracity of the claim and what it reveals regarding the power dynamics of loyalty and accountability.

Time to drop the really big bomb:@realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public.

Have a nice day, DJT!

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 5, 2025

Trump supporters say the Epstein allegation is a smear tactic or an act of vengeance. They describe Musk as bitter over the loss of subsidies and retaliating with elite-style slander. This group says the idea that Trump, long the target of political enemies, has not already been prosecuted for such an allegation, begs incredulity.

Critics of Trump seize on the moment. Those already skeptical of Trump’s moral fitness see the accusation as confirming long-held suspicions. They point to years of rumors, sealed documents, and evasions of accountability as circumstantial validation.

MIG Reports data shows:

• 65% of comments dismiss Musk’s Epstein claim as unfounded or politically motivated.
• 35% support or explore the possibility, with most engagement coming from liberal and Independent-aligned accounts.

Alliance Betrayed

Musk supporters accuse Trump of violating the campaign’s mandate by abandoning a core promise of fiscal discipline with his BBB. Critics, however, argue that Musk overestimated his role and misunderstood the realities of political implementation.

• Betrayal & Political Ingratitude: Some describe Musk as having been “used” by Trump for legitimacy during the campaign, only to be discarded once DOGE’s recommendations became politically inconvenient.
• Policy vs. Personality Framing: Some defend Trump’s fiscal decisions, citing political constraints. Others say Musk’s reaction is less about the bill and more about being silenced.
• Desire for Reconciliation: A handful call for both Trump and Musk to move past the feud, arguing an alliance still holds value for the right.

Economic Blowback and Market Signaling

The political also triggered immediate economic consequences in the financial markets. After Trump’s public threat to cancel federal contracts with Musk-linked companies, Tesla stock plummeted by 14%. While the stock rebounded roughly 5% in premarket trading the following day, the volatility suggests investors take these political feuds seriously.

For fiscal hawks, the market response is validation. It demonstrates the risks of entangling economic policy with vendetta-driven governance. The moment a political figure can erase billions in shareholder value with a single outburst, trust in rule-based economic policy begins to erode.

Trump loyalists dismiss the financial dip as overblown. They argue Tesla’s valuation is inflated and overdue for correction. They say federal contracts should not serve as permanent subsidies for billionaire-led firms. Some also say Elon will come around because he needs Trump more than Trump needs Elon.

Shifting Coalitions and Partisan Realignment

Within Trump’s base, loyalty remains strong. MAGA supporters overwhelmingly frame the feud as Musk turning on the movement that elevated him. They interpret Trump’s attacks as necessary strikes against a volatile, ketamine-fueled billionaire.

Meanwhile, Musk’s support is rising among Trump-critical Republicans, some independents, and libertarian-leaning voters. These groups express alarm not only at Trump’s rhetoric, but at ballooning fiscal policy. They see Musk’s frustration as legitimate.

Democrats seize the moment to reinforce their portrayal of Trump as dangerous and corrupt. They amplify Musk’s Epstein insinuation as evidence of deep rot, calling for immediate release of the files.

On the Trump-Musk feud, @AOC: “Oh man, the girls are fighting, aren’t they?” pic.twitter.com/YoErv1JZ8R

— Anthony Michael Kreis (@AnthonyMKreis) June 6, 2025