Recently, Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker received criticism for being an outspoken Catholic during his graduation speech at a Catholic university. In reaction, the official Twitter account for the City of Kansas City came close to doxxing Butker in a tweet pointing out where he lives.

The same day, the tweet was deleted, and Kansas City again tweeted, this time apologizing for the doxxing.

We apologies for our previous tweet. It was shared in error.

— Kansas City (@KansasCity) May 16, 2024

In response, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey notified the public he will be invoking the Missouri Human Rights Act in defense of Harrison Butker. The Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA) is a state law that prohibits discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations based on various protected characteristics, including religion.

MIG Reports analysis of the reaction to AG Bailey’s defense of Butker highlights two general trends:

• A newfound support among right leaning Americans for being proactive about cancellation.
• A continuing environment for left-leaning Americans of seeking “accountability,” which conservatives view as cancellation.

AG Bailey is seeking to investigate and enforce applicable law if is should show Harrison Butker’s rights were being violated by Kansas City – for disclosing where Butker lives.

BREAKING: My office is demanding accountability after@KansasCity doxxed @buttkicker7 last night for daring to express his religious beliefs.

I will enforce the Missouri Human Rights Act to ensure Missourians are not targeted for their free exercise of religion.

Stay tuned.

— Attorney General Andrew Bailey (@AGAndrewBailey) May 16, 2024

Political Reactions

Conservative Voices

Many conservative voices appreciate Bailey's decision, viewing it as a stand for religious freedom and free speech. They argue Butker, like any American, has the right to express his beliefs without facing professional repercussions or being canceled.

Conservatives often criticize what they perceive as a double standard among liberals, who they believe champion free speech only when it aligns with their own views. They argue liberals are quick to call for consequences when speech opposes their values.

Liberal Voices

Liberals and progressives are critical of Bailey coming to Butker’s defense but are ignoring the objectionable actions by Kansas City’s official X account. They argue freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences and emphasize that Butker's comments, which are perceived as misogynistic, should not be protected under the guise of religious freedom.

Liberals often highlight that expressing controversial opinions can and should incur professional and social repercussions, especially when those opinions are viewed as harmful or discriminatory.

Views on Free Speech and Religious Rights

Pro-Free Speech Advocates

Advocates for unrestricted free speech, irrespective of political affiliation, support Bailey's invocation of the Missouri Human Rights Act. They argue Butker's right to express his religious beliefs should be protected.

These voices are often concerned about the potential for censorship and the slippery slope of limiting speech based on its content or the reactions it provokes.

Pro-Accountability Advocates

Advocates for accountability argue that, while Butker has the right to express his beliefs, he must also face the consequences of those expressions, particularly if they are harmful or discriminatory.

This group emphasizes the importance of protecting the vulnerable from speech that can perpetuate discrimination or harm. They say societal progress often requires holding public figures accountable for their words.

Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker has recently been the subject of intense scrutiny and criticism. A public commencement speech in which he made statements about women’s accomplishments in the home versus academic or professional achievements has led many to label him as misogynistic, homophobic, and transphobic. This controversy has sparked a significant debate online, with reactions ranging from strong support to vehement opposition.

The NFL has formally condemned Harrison Butker’s statements, a predictable move given the league’s previous affirmations of leftist ideas such as Drag Queen Story Hour. Some draw a stark contrast in the NFL’s professed stance on women’s rights compared to its actions. Many making this argument highlight the history of violent offenders employed by the NFL, citing 1,079 arrests, charges, and citations among NFL players since 2000. This, critics say, indicates a hypocrisy within the NFL in its support for women.

Support for Butker

Many of Butker's supporters argue that his comments fall under the right to free speech and should be protected regardless of their content. These individuals often criticize what they perceive as liberal cancel culture and argue expressing conservative views should not result in backlash.

Conservatives and religious Americans resonate with Butker's views, seeing them as an expression of traditional values. Butker's speech aligns many of these groups’ beliefs about gender roles, sexuality, and morality. Right leaning and conservative voters say Butker is being unfairly attacked by woke activists for a previously mainstream and traditional viewpoint. Meanwhile, they say liberals and progressives are allowed to say much more incendiary things without anyone batting an eye. 

Criticism Against Butker

Progressive and liberal Americans tend to argue Butker's speech perpetuates harmful stereotypes and discrimination against marginalized groups. They see his comments as regressive and damaging to the ongoing efforts for equality and inclusivity.

Many in the LGBTQ community express strong disapproval of Butker’s remarks. They highlight the negative impact they perceive such statements to have on the mental health and societal acceptance of LGBTQ individuals.

Demographic Patterns

Support for Butker tends to be stronger in more conservative regions where voters voice frustration with woke ideology in sports, especially in parts of the United States known for their traditional values. Criticism is more prevalent in urban areas and states with progressive political leanings.

Younger demographics, particularly those active on platforms like Twitter and Instagram, are more likely to criticize Butker’s speech. Older demographics, who might consume news via more traditional media or conservative channels, show more support for Butker.

Women, especially those advocating for gender equality, are more likely to criticize Butker’s remarks. Men, particularly those aligned with conservative ideologies, tend to support Butker’s views themselves and his right to express them.

Public Sentiment Analysis

MIG Reports analysis shows the criticism against Harrison Butker is louder and more widespread online than his support. However, the support he does receive is fervent and rooted deeply in ideological beliefs about free speech and traditional values.

Platforms like Twitter are saturated with criticisms, often trending with hashtags that call out Butker’s views. Conservative platforms and forums are more likely to defend Butker, framing the backlash as an example of liberal intolerance.

Mainstream media tends to highlight the controversy and the criticisms, possibly reflecting a broader societal shift towards progressive values. Some also argue that social media and mainstream media bias may drown out a more commonly held viewpoints among average Americans.

The reaction to Harrison Butker's speech is deeply polarized, reflecting broader societal divides on issues of gender, sexuality, and free speech. While a vocal group supports Butker, believing he has the right to express his views, a larger and more diverse demographic seems to be critical of his remarks, viewing them as harmful and outdated. This suggests that, at least in the context of social media and public discourse, the criticism against Harrison Butker resonates more widely, especially among younger and more progressive populations.

The reactions to Judge Juan Merchan holding former President Trump in contempt for violating a gag order doesn’t seem to sway voter opinions about the court case or Trump as a 2024 presidential candidate. Those who support Trump and view the trial as politicized continue to do so. And those who believe Trump should be punished for his actions feel Judge Merchan’s actions are justified.

Republicans and conservatives express outrage and skepticism at the contempt ruling. They view special counsel Jack Smith as a political hitman and believe the case is politically motivated. Many also believe Trump is being unjustly persecuted and are calling for investigations into the individuals they perceive to be orchestrating this persecution.

Democrats and anti-Trump Republicans are more likely to believe Trump has violated the gag order and should be held accountable for his actions. These voters are likely to be generally critical of Trump's presidency and his future election prospects. They argue no one is above the law, including former presidents, and Trump should face the consequences of his actions.

Liberals tend to believe Trump represents a threat to democracy and accuse him of aspiring to dictatorship. This group often cites various investigations and legal actions against Trump as evidence of his supposed criminal behavior.

The fact that Trump is being prosecuted for multiple crimes indicates to anti-Trump voters that he is guilty. Meanwhile, the same evidence is viewed by Trump supporters, not as a sign that Trump is guilty, but rather that the cases are politically motivated.

Some moderate voters hold skepticism towards both sides, questioning the motivations and actions of all involved. These individuals express frustration at the perceived political theater and call for more focus on issues that directly affect the American people.

There are also Democrats who express concern about the potential impact of protests and contempt charges on the upcoming election. They worry court rulings or convictions could lead to a backlash among certain voter groups, ultimately helping Trump in his re-election bid.

• Donald Trump being held in contempt by Judge Merchan has not significantly impacted his approval, dropping only one point nationally and in swing states.
• Sentiment towards Trump’s legal issues also dropped slightly, indicating some voters may feel unhappy with the proceedings.

Fear of Trump Being Re-elected

Democrats and anti-Trump Republicans are more likely to view the contempt charge as a clear sign of Trump's disregard for the law and the Constitution. Some liberals argue the former president is attempting to establish a dictatorship, undermine democracy, and escape accountability for alleged criminal activities. They express fear that if Trump were to be re-elected, he would terminate the Constitution and establish authoritarian rule.

Concern Over Judicial Norms

The reaction of many legal professionals and experts has placed focus on the implications of a former president being held in contempt. These experts argue the issue is less about Trump as an individual and more about the precedent it sets for future interactions between the judiciary and the executive branch. Many legal minds contrast allegations against Trump with allegations against Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and Bill Clinton, pointing out that political norms have historically prevented prosecuting political figures.

Critics of Trump argue the Trump prosecutions are justified and fair. They insist Trump's posts on social media could potentially influence the jury and witnesses. They applaud the judge's decision to hold Trump in contempt, arguing his conduct, rather than the tail itself, breaks norms. Some express hope this ruling could lead to further legal consequences for Trump, including potential jail time.

Free Speech Worries

Many are also framing the contempt charge as a free speech violation. They say the former president should be able to express his views without interference. This group believes the gag order is an example of judicial overreach and call for the fines to be returned.

Some argue the actions of Judge Merchan are part of a broader conspiracy to undermine Trump and his campaign. They have also expressed concern that the gag order extends to Trump's campaign, which they see as an infringement on political speech. There are repeated concerns that political actors are attempting to influence the election by silencing Trump and the American people have a right to hear from Trump himself.

There are also reactions that do not neatly fit into the pro-Trump or anti-Trump categories. Some voters say the issue is not as much about free speech as it is about the right to a fair trial. Others have expressed concern about the potential implications of the ruling for future cases. They say it could set a dangerous precedent for limiting free speech in the context of legal proceedings.

Texas voter reactions to the police response to protesters at University of Texas in Austin are varied. MIG Reports analysis shows political polarization echoing national politics and different perspectives on the issue.

Support and Critique of Texas Police Response

Some Texans support the police actions and arrests during the campus protests, viewing the demonstrations as a threat to public safety, and an expression of antisemitism. This group, often expresses pro-Trump sentiments, consider the protests to be hate-filled and believe students engaging in such activities should face severe consequences, including expulsion. They also accuse the protesters of propagandizing the situation and manipulating media coverage. Some suggest the protests are being funded by left-wing activists such as George Soros. They believe a robust response, like that seen under the Trump administration, is necessary to hinder such activities and prevent the kind of protests which recently shut down bridges and streets.

On the other hand, some voters criticize the police response, viewing it as an infringement on the protesters' First Amendment rights. They argue colleges have always been a hub for protests and the current response is politically biased. These voters often contrast the police response to anti-Israel protests with the response to predominantly white, far-right groups. They express concern about potential violent outcomes, referencing historical events like the Kent State shootings. They also criticize the political focus on Trump, arguing it distracts from the immediate issues at hand.

The division in Texas voter reactions reflect broader political and ideological tensions in the country. This division is likely to influence voting behavior, party affiliations, and political activism in the state. It also suggests any policy or legal responses to the protests and police actions will be highly contentious and potentially polarizing.

Reactions to Governor Abbot’s Comments

A significant part of the online discourse revolves around Governor Greg Abbott's purported stance towards the protesters. Some suggest he was planning to arrest those expressing support for Hamas, a claim that received mixed reactions. Others expressed outrage, viewing this as an infringement on free speech rights, while others appeared to support the move, arguing there is no place for antisemitism in Texas.

The police's reaction to the protests has also been controversial. There have been reports of state troopers and police officers making more than 20 arrests on campus, and many charged with trespassing. Law enforcement’s heavy-handed response has sparked outrage among some Texas voters who argue that it is an infringement on the students' constitutional rights.

Predictably, this sentiment appears to be contributing to a heightened sense of frustration and injustice among some students and supporters of the pro-Palestine movement. This feeling of being used as political pawns could potentially fuel further protests, escalating tensions between students, university authorities, and law enforcement.

Furthermore, there are concerns strong-handed law enforcement, including the use of batons and arrests, could have long-term repercussions on student trust in police. Not only could this exacerbate tensions on college campuses, but it could also impact wider public perceptions of the police.

MIG Reports analysis clearly shows a potential TikTok ban in the United States is opposed by most voters. This majority views a ban as an infringement on their freedom of speech, a fundamental right in the United States.

Many voters express concern over government overreach and censorship. They argue their voices are being silenced and their ability to express themselves freely is being limited. This sentiment is particularly strong among younger Americans, who are more likely to use TikTok and other social media platforms as a form of expression and communication.

Many view the potential ban as an assault on their First Amendment rights, arguing the government is trying to control or limit platforms it has no right to restrict. They express concern about the suppression of voices, elimination of income streams, and potentially silencing certain opinions. They say without platforms like TikTok, an array of voices may not be heard.

Freedom of Speech Arguments

The concept of freedom of speech appears to be particularly important to younger Americans. They view TikTok as a platform for self-expression and community building. These users often refer to the app as a space that allows uncensored speech and promotes diversity. They fear a ban would be unnecessary and counterproductive.

There is a small contingent, mostly older voters, who support the ban. They frequently cite national security concerns. This group argues the Chinese-owned app is a risk to the United States and its citizens. Some also say big tech companies being regulated by the government is not a free speech issue. However, this sentiment is less prevalent and is mainly found among older Americans.

Arguments also spark debates about freedom of speech versus hate speech. Some say freedom of speech should not be used as a cover to promote hate or discrimination. This sentiment is seen across various age groups and political affiliations.

Gen Z and Other Digital Natives

Among younger demographics, regardless of political affiliation, opinions are largely negative towards the ban. Younger Americans view TikTok as a source of entertainment, self-expression, and even income.

This group often blames both the Trump and Biden administrations for the proposed ban, often using humor and sarcasm in their comments. They also express concern over the government's control over social media platforms.

Other Discussions About TikTok

General sentiment toward the idea of banning TikTok in the United States appears to be divided along political and generational lines. Beyond free speech and government censorship, people are discussing security, social issues, and the modern community.

National Security

Some conservative or older voters insist a ban is necessary due to concerns over national security and data privacy. They argue TikTok and its Chinese parent company ByteDance, share sensitive user data with the Chinese government.

Anti-Woke Sentiment

A significant number of voters express anti-woke sentiments, a term often used to criticize perceived political correctness or progressive social ideologies. These users voice disdain for what they perceive as liberal or “left: bias on social media platforms, including TikTok.

Anti-Racism

More liberal or progressive voters say they use TikTok as a platform to promote anti-racist sentiments and ideas. They argue banning TikTok would suppress these important conversations and movements.

Entertainment and Community

For many younger users, TikTok is primarily a source of entertainment and community. These Americans often express frustration at the potential ban, viewing it as an unnecessary restriction on their leisure activities and social interactions.

Recent accusations of biased reporting against National Public Radio (NPR) have stirred up public resentment and calls for defunding. After veteran journalist Uri Berliner published an article with The Free Press chastising NPR for its unsupportable liberal bias, his subsequent suspension and resignation created controversy online.

My resignation letter to NPR CEO @krmaher pic.twitter.com/0hafVbcZAK

— Uri Berliner (@uberliner) April 17, 2024

Many discussions center around the belief that NPR, along with other mainstream media outlets, display a significant left-wing bias. People, including Berliner, argue NPR prioritizes a leftist agenda over objective journalism, contributing to polarization and distrust. This bias is perceived in the choice of stories covered, the framing of news narratives, and the selection of sources or experts for interviews.

Liberals tend to be more supportive, but some still have criticisms. They suggest NPR's bias is not so much a partisan issue but rather a reflection of the organization's commitment to "well-meaning liberal feel-good" coverage. They argue NPR is sometimes "wimpy" in its reporting and works hard not to offend anyone.

Disconcerting Comments from NPR’s CEO

There are heated debates around NPR's leadership, particularly the new CEO Katherine Maher. Critics argue her views undermine the objective pursuit of truth and threaten freedom of speech.

Berliner himself said in his resignation statement that her leadership “confirm the very problems” of leftist bias. Others like author Chris Rufo have exposed past comments from Maher, betraying her as an apparent leftist devotee. These discussions among journalists online have also generated public awareness and backlash.

EXCLUSIVE: Katherine Maher doesn't just want to "stamp out bad information" on the internet. She wants to replace it with "good information"—i.e., left-wing narratives—and force the public to "sit within that good information" as "a collective."

Big Sister has arrived. pic.twitter.com/7kfq8VYHfj

— Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) April 18, 2024

Maher’s defenders praise her leadership skills and commitment to transparency, brushing aside accusations of clear partisan loyalty. Many critics cite her past work with Wikipedia, tweets and posts stumping for Joe Biden, and clear cut liberal perspectives on identity politics, censorship, and the First Amendment.

Taxpayer Dollars Supporting Left-Wing Media

NPR's public funding is a contentious issue. Critics argue taxpayer money should not be used to fund a platform that is being exposed as biased and propagandist. They argue for defunding NPR, asserting it should be privately funded like other media outlets.

Criticisms of taxation and government spending amid other pressing issues like a struggling economy and benefits for illegal aliens seems to exacerbate negativity toward public funding for NPR. While Americans struggle to make ends meet, many seem appalled and indignant about tax dollars being spent to support outlets like NPR.

Overarching Distrust of American Media

The issue of bias in NPR's reporting is not isolated but is part of a broader conversation about media bias in the United States. Americans are increasingly polarized in their perceptions of media bias, with many believing most news outlets have a political bias. This has rapidly eroded trust in mainstream media and spurred an increasing reliance on alternative news sources.

Online discussions also suggest Americans believe mainstream media actively supports the current administration and various Democrat political figures. Many of these discussions accuse the media and Democrats of lying and coordinating to push messaging for Democrat politicians.

Many accuse NPR and other outlets of being a propaganda arm for the Democratic Party, saying their views are dismissed and unrepresented. Some also direct personal attacks at various media figures like Katherine Maher, Rachel Maddow, and Don Lemon.

There is also discussion about a 2014 Pew Research Center study which found that NPR's audience skews liberal, with 67% identifying as left-leaning while only 21% identifying as right-leaning. Many commentors say even these percentages fail to capture the true composition of NPR’s left leaning audience.

Overall, many Americans view the resignation of Uri Berliner as indicative of a larger trend of liberal bias in media organizations.

Current conversations around the possibility of Trump's re-election among Democratic, left-leaning, and progressive voices reveal much concern, skepticism, and outright opposition. Rachel Maddow and other left-leaning commentators often criticize Trump's policies and leadership style, frequently discussing the potential implications and risks of a second Trump term. At the same time, they dismiss or redirect from problems with the Biden administration.

Much of the commentary class is focused on nebulous topics which are difficult to quantify or provide nuanced discourse on. Common discussions among leftists and progressives regarding a second Trump term typically center around perceived authoritarianism, isolationism, and abuses of power. There is a strong sentiment among progressives that a second Trump term would lead to the destruction of democratic norms and increased polarization.

Authoritarianism

Progressives fear authoritarianism if Trump is reelected. They fear a combative press relationship, disregard for checks and balances, and unilateral decision-making, warning a second term would escalate into a more authoritarian leadership style.

Isolationism

Progressives worry about Trump's isolationist foreign policy, claiming it strains alliances, undermines global cooperation on climate change, and empowers authoritarian regimes. They fear a second term would prolong or worsen these trends.

Abuses of Power

This group asserts Trump abused power in his first term, highlighting actions like firing FBI Director James Comey and attempting to manipulate the Justice Department against political foes.

FISA Concerns

There is fear Trump might misuse FISA to target domestic political opponents, risking civil liberties.

These concerns are sometimes shared among moderate Democrats and Independents, although the intensity of the concerns vary. There is a significant portion of moderate Democrats and Independents who appear to be more focused on other issues, or who might view these concerns as overly alarmist. Additionally, moderate Democrats and Independents might disagree with progressives on policy issues, even if they share some of the same concerns about a potential second Trump term.

MIG Reports analysis identifies that online discussions about Biden outweigh those of Trump. Despite this, Trump’s approval ratings are generally higher across issues important to voters. This showcases that establishment media’s messaging is not representative of the electorate or even the entire Democratic party.

Online commentary among left leaning voters also reveals dissatisfaction with the current political climate writ large. While many do criticize the conservative right, there is also dissatisfaction with what they see as the failures of both liberal and centrist Democrats. Some argue for a more radical, leftist approach to politics. Others express frustration at what they perceive as a lack of focus on key issues like economic inequality, healthcare, and the environment.

The Biden administration’s performance is another major focus of Democratic voter commentary. Some criticize Biden for his handling of the border crisis. Others accuse his administration of denying women the right to buy houses by allowing a significant increase in housing prices.

There is criticism directed towards Vice President Kamala Harris, with some suggesting she was chosen for her identity rather than her abilities or success.

Many left leaning and progressive voters are unhappy with the current tax system, expressing concerns about misuse of tax dollars. These voters are frustrated with how their tax money is being used, especially in terms of foreign aid and government spending. They suggest tax dollars are being squandered or misallocated, and express resentment over the perceived lack of benefits they are receiving in return for their taxes.

In a recent revelation that has sent shockwaves through political circles, a former FBI agent, Gavin O’Blennis, was caught on camera discussing the agency's alleged tactics, including targeting American citizens and potential entrapment strategies. O’Blennis's claims, made to an undercover journalist, have ignited a fiery debate about the fairness of prosecutions and the existence of a double standard within the American justice system, particularly concerning former President Donald Trump and his supporters.

BREAKING: CIA Officer/Former FBI Boasts “Can Put Anyone in Jail…Set ’Em Up!” “We Call It a Nudge”

FBI “Did What We Wanted” with Alex Jones @RealAlexJones “Took His Money Away” “Chop His Legs Off”

Estimates 20 Undercover FBI Agents at J6, Works with Some of Them Now at CIA

FBI… pic.twitter.com/QxP20emKB5

— Sound Investigations (@SoundInvestig) April 9, 2024

Key Themes of Conversation

Disapproval of FBI and CIA Tactics

• Users express strong disapproval of the FBI and CIA, accusing them of setting people up and engaging in unethical practices.
• Demands for defunding these agencies emerge as a response to the perceived abuse of power and manipulation of the justice system.

Support and Criticism of Political Figures

• Discussion about Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (MTG) surfaces, with some users praising her for purportedly revealing the truth, while others criticize her actions.
• Allegations of political bias and agenda-setting within government institutions like the FBI and CIA prompt scrutiny of their role in targeting specific individuals.

Controversies Surrounding FISA and Prosecutions

• Anger erupts over efforts to reauthorize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), viewed by some as a tool for unwarranted spying on Americans.
• The prosecution of individuals involved in the January 6 Capitol riot, coupled with claims of entrapment and unfair treatment, fuels discussions about the integrity of the justice system and potential political motivations behind prosecutions.

Analysis

Online discourse around the FBI official's admission delves into a myriad of conspiracy theories and suspicions surrounding the actions of intelligence agencies. A prevalent belief among some conservatives suggests a concerted effort by the "deep state" to undermine Trump and his supporters. This narrative often intertwines allegations of election fraud and accusations of biased prosecutions against conservative figures.

• Sentiment around the topics of “deep state” and “political opponents” took a hit as discussion of the undercover video increased.

The term "deep state" features prominently in discussions, with users expressing concerns about partisan agendas within government agencies and the perceived targeting of individuals based on their political affiliations. Criticism of media outlets and accusations of liberal bias contribute to the overarching sentiment of distrust towards mainstream institutions.

Moreover, conversations highlight broader societal issues, such as concerns about the influence of political correctness or "woke culture," and debates about gender issues and media integrity. Allegations of censorship and selective reporting further deepen divisions within the online discourse, reflecting broader societal polarization.

Conclusion

The admission by an FBI official has served as a catalyst for intense debates about justice, political bias, and the erosion of trust in institutions. The conversations reflect a deep-seated divide in ideologies, with accusations of unfair treatment and manipulation amplifying existing tensions within society. As discussions continue to unfold, the ramifications of these revelations on public trust and accountability remain at the forefront of national discourse.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and its reauthorization have been a significant topic of discussion, especially in the context of surveillance and privacy issues. It is critical to understand citizen perceptions about FISA and whether they believe it is being used as a political tool against opponents.

Political party affiliation has a significant influence on perceptions of FISA. Democrats generally have a more positive sentiment towards FISA, often viewing it as a necessary tool for national security. Republicans are more likely to question the act, particularly after the 2016 elections and allegations of its misuse against President Trump's campaign. They tend to view FISA with suspicion, believing it could potentially be used to target political opponents. Independents fall somewhere in the middle, with their views varying based on individual beliefs about privacy and national security.

When looking at other demographics, it becomes a bit more complex. Economic class, for example, may influence perceptions, with wealthier individuals tending to be more skeptical of government surveillance. Geographically, those living in urban areas, particularly on the coasts, tend to be more accepting of FISA, seeing it as a necessary tool in the fight against terrorism. In contrast, those in rural areas or the heartland are more likely to view it as a potential infringement on their rights.

It's crucial to note that these perceptions are not static but can shift based on current events, political climate, and individual experiences. For instance, perceived misuse or abuse of FISA could lead to more widespread skepticism, regardless of party affiliation or demographic group. Therefore, maintaining trust in FISA requires transparency, accountability, and ongoing dialogue to address concerns and misconceptions.

There is also a lot of distrust and skepticism expressed towards politicians and institutions, including the CIA and FBI. Many voters view these agencies as being part of the “Deep State.” Many people seem to believe there is widespread corruption and misuse of power at various levels of government. These individuals often use terms like “Uniparty” or “Deep State Cartel” to refer to what they view as a singular, corrupt entity controlling American politics.