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.

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 Democratic Party post-2024 is battered, fragmented, and struggling to find narrative control. After a decisive loss in the presidential election and significant erosion across key swing states, Democrats now face a serious credibility crisis. Voter trust is collapsing, the leadership bench appears hollow, and symbolic figures once propped up as cultural assets now stand exposed or irrelevant.

The party that once campaigned on restoring norms has become a study in contradictions. Democrats are trapped in a cycle of performance politics disconnected from voter sentiment. The base feels abandoned. Independents, particularly those who defected to Trump in 2024, express disdain for Democrats' failure to articulate any cohesive vision, even as internal fractures grow.

Biden’s Autopen and Absent Leadership

Joe Biden’s notorious use of the autopen during his presidency has become symbolic of the lack of clear leadership among Democrats. In prior administrations, the autopen drew little attention. Under Biden, it has become a viral flashpoint, which voters see as evidence of absentee governance.

BREAKING 🚨 Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt just confirmed Trumps DOJ is investigating the autopen

TICK TOCK… all of those Autopen Pardons will be null and VOID

pic.twitter.com/Y8rSfPNI12

— MAGA Voice (@MAGAVoice) June 3, 2025

A recurring narrative online suggests Biden was “replaced” in 2020 by a cabal of unelected shadow figures. Many say he served only as a ceremonial figurehead while far leftist activists governed behind the scenes.

This sentiment is amplified by recent media and Democratic revelations about Joe Biden’s mental health. Particularly in tell-all books by people like Jake Tapper and Karine Jean-Pierre.

• 60% of discussions related to Biden's autopen express negative sentiment.
• 25% include conspiracy framings (e.g. body double, AI control, secret cabinet governance).
• There is a crossover with Independents who don’t embrace full conspiracies, but question Biden’s autonomy.
• Recurring language includes “ghost presidency,” “phantom executive,” “rubber stamp government.”

Online discussion portrays Biden as passive, silent, and shielded. People say he was incapable of managing the burdens of office. Critics on both the right and the center-left argue using the autopen distances Biden from responsibility, particularly on executive orders involving contentious issues like immigration, economic regulation, and military deployments.

Karine Jean-Pierre and the Optics of Failure

Karine Jean-Pierre’s new book, along with the attempt to rebrand herself as politically independent, lands with a thud. The former Biden Press Secretary, Jean-Pierre now exits the party with little credibility and waning support. Online, the response is dismissive at best, derisive at worst.

COVERUP: Karine Jean-Pierre, Biden’s former White House Press Secretary has left the Democrat Party to publish her tell-all book about the president. She was a central figure responsible for defrauding the US government and the American people.
pic.twitter.com/HcD6nfvGjn

— @amuse (@amuse) June 4, 2025

The public doesn’t see Jean-Pierre as a figure with convictions. They see her as a mouthpiece—an extension of an administration known for scripted evasion and pre-approved talking points. Many mock her book title as unintentionally ironic. The idea that someone who spent years delivering White House talking points without deviation could now claim “independence” reads as a late-stage career maneuver, not a meaningful shift.

• Less than 1% of online discussions mention Jean-Pierre’s memoir or her political defection.
• Tone is overwhelmingly sarcastic with jokes that she’s “independent of facts,” “independent of follow-up questions,” or “independent of relevance.”
• Disengagement is the key theme as voters say her role never felt substantive to begin with.

Critics view Jean-Pierre as a failed operative and a case study in the hollow identity politics that have come to define the Democratic apparatus. Her appointment was framed as historic—first Black, openly gay woman to serve as press secretary—but her performance reinforced a perception that the administration was more invested in symbolism than effectiveness. Voters critique her by citing dodged questions, fumbled names, or cited briefing notes for basic queries.

Even Democratic loyalists aren’t speaking of Jean-Pierre’s departure as a betrayal. They view it as inconsequential. Her fade into obscurity reflects a broader collapse in confidence toward party figures.

George Clooney and the Cultural Delusion

Recent comments from George Clooney are also adding to the deluge of criticism toward Democrats. His assertion that “Trumpism” will die with the end of Trump’s second administration is circulated widely among Democratic influencers and media personalities. But outside of leftist enclaves, the comment lands flat. To most voters, Clooney is a celebrity with waning clout—the same criticism he launches at Trump.

NEW: George Clooney claims MAGA is dead after Trump finishes this term.

ANDERSON COOPER: “Do you think Trumpism lasts beyond this term?”

CLOONEY: “Don’t think so. I think it’d be very hard to do it.”

Clooney then put on his “expert” hat to explain why he thinks that is:

“He… pic.twitter.com/F35uso4HxW

— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) June 5, 2025

The response to Clooney’s remark illustrates the broader issue that Democrats lean too heavily on celebrity figures to define their political messaging, especially in moments of defeat. Clooney’s statement further confirms, for many, the loss of cultural power among the celebrity and political classes.

• Liberal audiences treat Clooney’s claim as hopeful and emboldening.
• Conservatives and Independents react with ridicule, often using Clooney’s statement to mock elite detachment.
• Comments include things like, “If Clooney says it, it must be false” or “Hollywood is the DNC’s last line of defense.”

Rather than reassess why their coalition is shrinking, Democrats elevate symbolic gestures that resonate only in safe cultural spaces. In that context, many see Clooney as narrating a fantasy.

Democratic Voter Sentiment on Future Leadership

Significant cultural and narrative failures by the media and Democrats are causing growing concern for Democratic voters. Many point out infighting or the breakdown of unity in things like Jean-Pierre's book. They also say Democrats have failed to produce a single breakout figure capable of restoring trust, commanding attention, or articulating a post-Biden vision.

Voters across the spectrum, including disaffected Democrats, Independents, and younger progressives, are expressing frustration at the party’s lack of direction. The absence of any coherent succession plan only amplifies concerns that the party is relying on inertia to carry itself to a future victory.

• Kamala Harris remains deeply unpopular and is rarely invoked in positive terms. Her visibility has decreased, reaching an average of less than 500 mentions in MIG Reports data over the last 30 days.
• Gavin Newsom and Pete Buttigieg receive occasional speculation, but with no enthusiastic base. They're seen more as media constructs than organic leaders.
• Some mention AOC, but there is not enough momentum to bring hope to the party writ large.
• Independent and swing voters see the party’s leadership apparatus as lifeless—more interested in managing decline than winning hearts.

Instead of an internal reckoning, the party projects manufactured enthusiasm. Voters suggest celebrity commentary fills the space where leadership should be. The sentiment is increasingly that political energy has shifted toward Trump’s movement. Even among younger liberals, attention is fragmented, with no figure commanding serious loyalty.

Institutional Disintegration and Cultural Drift

The whole picture for the Democratic Party suggests structural freefall. Despite protests from partisan loyalists, this isn't a messaging problem. Democrats are suffering from a credibility collapse. Voters no longer see Democrats as capable of leading the country.

• Executive power is perceived as vacant. Biden’s autopen controversy serves to symbolize the view that Democrats no longer govern but submit to the hivemind.
• Communication is performative. Jean-Pierre, once touted as a historic press secretary, only serves to deepen skepticism of authenticity among leaders.
• Cultural proxies have replaced political leadership. Voters see Democrats' reliance on celebrity surrogates like Clooney as desperate, not inspiring.
• There is no future figure. Sentiment suggests voters are resigned to a sense that the party may not produce a credible successor by 2028.

Pride Month, which has been a cultural mainstay of progressive politics for years, is starting to show cracks in public perceptions and adherence. Once marketed as an inclusive celebration, Pride month has lost favor for its imposition on corporate marketing, education, media, and more. Americans increasingly view ostentatious Pride displays as politicized and irrelevant.

Public Sentiment Slipping

Starting a couple of years ago with a Bud Light and Target controversy, conservatives pushed back against LGBT ideology coopting American brands. Now, as more voters acknowledge that cultural tides are turning, compulsory Pride displays are no longer in vogue as they were a few years ago.

MIG Reports data shows in overall discussions:

• Just 7% of all recent online discussions touche on Pride Month or LGBTQ+ issues.
• Within that, 30% of discussions expressly support deemphasizing Pride Month.
• 10% cite the dominance of transgender issues as a reason for Pride’s erosion.
• 12% identify corporate pullback, with major brands scaling down Pride marketing.

In LGBTQ-specific discourse:

• 35% express support for Pride or LGBTQ rights.
• 40% are critical or oppositional.
• 25% are neutral, sarcastic, or conflicted.

While Pride discussions are shrinking in general online discourse, many of the mentions carry a mocking, hostile, or derisive tone. There is still significant support from the progressive and cultural left. However, saturation is waning.

Pride Falls Off the Radar

Across wide-ranging conversations—from tariffs to foreign policy to immigration—Pride Month remains on the edges. Where it does appear, it is often used as a punchline or ideological flashpoint.

Comments range from outright hostility to ironic dismissal. Even positive references tend to be sarcastic, often paired with mocking imagery or partisan rhetoric. Discussions among conservatives often touch on related cultural issues like trans ideology and corporate shilling.

Discussions today are a departure from previous years, when corporate campaigns, media coverage, and social media coordination made June a month of wall-to-wall Pride visibility. Now, the silence is telling.

On the right, people point out Trump’s return to office as an indicator of public consensus swinging away from cultural progressivism to patriotic Americanism.

My Southern California Target June 1, 2024
vs
Target June 1, 2025

🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/pJCEIl4nnS

— Caitlin Francis (@MrsCMFrancis) June 1, 2025

Fractures on All Sides

In conversations centered on LGBTQ rights, sentiment remains divided but pointed. A solid third of commenters defend Pride as a necessary commemoration of civil rights victories. But they are outnumbered by those who see the month as stale, over-marketed, or politically captured.

More voters now see Pride exclusionary rather than inclusive. To critics, it signals state-sanctioned cultural values imposed through schools, government contracts, and corporate branding. Even on the left, there is division about appropriate ways to celebrate Pride. Cultural fragmentation on the left is evident here, mirroring cracks in left leaning politics.

A more neutral “woke fatigue” is also notable among swing-aligned independents. This group increasingly treats Pride messaging as background noise or virtue signaling.

Transgender Politics Eclipses the Brand

In many discussions, transgender issues dominate the Pride conversation. The topics range from trans athletes to gender-affirming care to pronoun mandates in schools. They’re often referenced as the defining features of Pride discourse.

That shift has consequences. Those who support deemphasizing Pride often blame this cultural takeover by trans ideology. They argue the movement has lost focus—what began as a call for dignity and civil rights has become an ideological minefield centered on gender politics and institutional compliance.

Even among supporters, there’s discomfort. Some, particularly more moderate LGB groups, express frustration that trans issues now overshadow gay and lesbian narratives. Others see trans emphasis as alienating to a majority of Americans who do not identify as LGBTQ.

Corporations Step Back

The public is also noticing that Pride is no longer an automatic marketing fixture. Comments point out that brands are either staying silent or carefully neutral. Rainbow logos are fewer. Activist tie-ins are more subdued. The language has shifted from celebration to risk management.

Where once ESG consultants encouraged brands to out-pride one another, many now recognize the political cost. Critics on the right frame the pullback as an overdue correction that has not come soon enough. Progressives more often accuse companies of cowardice.

For many, corporate Pride is now seen as a liability, not a layup.

The Gayness is over pic.twitter.com/Cu9JGcwgCg

— Wall Street Mav (@WallStreetMav) June 2, 2025

Reprioritizing Civic Values

As Pride, imposed on public consciousness, declines in prominence, a counter-demand emerges. Americans repeatedly ask why LGBTQ identities are elevated over other labels like military service, trades, faith, or national heritage. This refrain shows up in memes, rhetorical questions, and calls for replacement observances—Veterans Month, Faith Month, or “Straight Pride.”

This impulse to realign identity politics isn’t fringe. It’s part of a broader cultural push to reassert traditional civic symbols. To many, the death Pride signifies a cultural spring where traditional American values return to the forefront of public celebration.

For the last decade, DEI has enjoyed broad institutional acceptance and increasing social obligation. From elite universities to federal agencies to Fortune 500 boardrooms, diversity, equity, and inclusion policies were treated as necessary, even morally unquestionable. That era is over.

Across social platforms, MIG Reports analysis shows DEI now sparks overwhelming hostility, with 80% of public commentary expressing opposition to DEI. The backlash has gone from a silent minority to a nationwide cultural realignment.

Americans do not view DEI as a tool for inclusion but as a mechanism of exclusion which privileges identity over merit, ideology over competence, and bureaucracy over performance. Once sold as equity, voters now perceive DEI as ideological enforcement by elite institutions which should no longer be immune to democratic accountability.

Voters Want Meritocracy

The prevailing critique of DEI rests on its dismissal of meritocracy. Americans say it is reverse discrimination wrapped in corporate jargon. “DEI hire” has become a slur, serving as shorthand for someone assumed to be unqualified but selected to meet an identity quota. For critics, this causes standards to be lowered in pursuit of political optics.

Opposition narratives emphasize fairness, unity, and shared standards. They frame DEI mandates as corrosive to institutional excellence and social cohesion. Americans increasingly agree that DEI is designed to divide rather than unify.

Instead of elevating individuals based on ability, DEI re-ranks opportunity based on race, gender, or ideology. Critics say this punishes ambition and excellence. Resentment is especially acute in education and government, where hiring and admissions decisions affect public trust.

The DEI Symbol Shift

As backlash intensifies, DEI has become a cultural signifier—grouped alongside critical race theory, pronoun mandates, and ESG investing as part of a broader elite orthodoxy. In this environment, rejecting DEI signals alignment with the populist priorities of fairness, constitutionalism, and national cohesion.

BREAKING: MIT shuts down DEI office, per NYP. pic.twitter.com/Hyn0myUaxt

— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) May 28, 2025

This symbolic shift place DEI front and center in ongoing culture wars. Conservatives treat it as an existential threat to American values. Moderates and independents don’t go that far, but they question its purpose, cost, and outcomes.

Voters often link DEI to institutional failures. They describe elite universities like Harvard as racially obsessed and detached from merit. They view federal DEI programs as bloated and ineffective. Many also credit President Trump with initiating the downfall of such woke mandates.

The Media Trust Gap

Discussions also increasingly criticize how DEI is covered by legacy media. Axios reports that companies keeping DEI commitments are seeing gains in public reputation. The Axios Harris Poll measured slight increases (1.5 to 2.3 points) in brand perception for these firms, crediting continued DEI efforts.

This framing falls flat with a public growing hostile to progressive ideology and mainstream media. Right-leaning voices see reports like these as elite self-congratulation and attempts to reestablish woke narratives which have lost cultural power.

To DEI critics, the idea that “reputation” gains among media-aligned pollsters indicate broad approval is proof of how disconnected the press is from public mood. Reputation, in this view, is a bubble shaped more by ideological bias than real-world performance.

Online discourse accuses outlets like Axios of filtering reality through an ideological lens. Rather than acknowledging growing skepticism toward DEI, these reports focus on corporate virtue metrics and executive sentiment. That choice reinforces the perception that legacy media acts as a shield for elite narratives rather than an objective observer.

Trump’s Anti-DEI Offensive

Political implications are already visible as Trump and MAGA Republicans reframe DEI as a threat to national competence and integrity. Trump’s critiques—particularly around military readiness and federal hiring—present DEI as a national security liability. His messaging is strong and resonates strongly with voters who want DEI policies reversed.

Governors and lawmakers in red states are capitalizing on the momentum created by Trump’s populist platform. DEI programs are being cut, suspended, or scrutinized. New legislation aims to bar race- or identity-based criteria from admissions, hiring, and procurement. Supportive voters see these proposals as a return to neutrality.

DEI experts can't find jobs. Thousands laid off.

DEI experts lament lack of hiring and DEI "retreat" in major corporations.

- 2,600 laid off
-13% of positions closed
- More than 9 months an no new job openings for one DEI expert.

The woke mind virus is in decline and they are… pic.twitter.com/Mn16Evoa9e

— Grummz (@Grummz) May 28, 2025

Strategic Outlook

For policymakers, there is political upside in proposing race-neutral hiring and budget transparency. For campaigns, DEI rollback offers a populist rallying point with swing voters disillusioned by institutional excess. Framing is simple, emphasizing fairness without favoritism.

For institutions, the reputational calculus is shifting. Public-facing DEI initiatives now carry risk rather than insulation. There is rising pressure to justify outcomes over diversity optics. The days of declaring progress by publishing demographic ratios are ending. Stakeholders want competence, performance, and apolitical governance.

The selection of Pope Leo XIV, the first American-born pontiff has been big news worldwide. For Americans, already divided by ideology, identity, and institutional distrust, the papacy has become yet another proxy battlefield.

For millions of Americans, religious discussions spill over into talk of power, nationalism, and whether faith will be used to restore order or reinforce globalist decline. Various voter group lines blur regarding issues like papal authority, which do not directly correlate with political divisions.

Seeing a lot of hot takes of people trying to figure out if the pope is conservative or not because he's pro-life but he's also pro-immigration and care for the poor.
Idk, guys. Call me crazy, but I think the pope might be Catholic.

— Dr. Laura Robinson (@LauraRbnsn) May 8, 2025

Political Fault Lines

The reaction among political conservatives is sharply split. About 50% support Pope Leo XIV’s emphasis on tradition and moral clarity, while the other half distrust his public criticism of Trump-era policies.

Many MAGA voters see the pope’s humanitarian rhetoric—especially around immigration—as thinly veiled progressive messaging. For them, his social commentary on due process and border enforcement feels like a rebuke of the nationalist resurgence they support.

Among liberals, reactions are more unified—though in disapproval. 70-85% of liberal voters criticize the pope for failing to embrace modern progressive dogmas. To them, his message of mercy sounds hollow without support for identity politics, gender ideology, or radical wealth redistribution. The papacy, once a darling of social justice warriors under Francis, is now seen as compromised—too religious to be woke, too American to be trusted.

Independents and centrists express a more cynical mix of disengagement and frustration. For many, the pope is just the latest symbol of institutional figureheads they believe are co-opted by politics or ideology.

American Religious Reactions

Catholic voters are cautiously supportive. 60-65% approve of the new pope’s humanitarian tone and focus on compassion. However, about 35% voice skepticism, citing concerns over nationalism, resurfaced abuse cover-up allegations, and potential politicization of the Vatican.

Evangelicals are more decisive in their rejection. 70% disapprove of Pope Leo XIV’s messaging, with only 30% expressing any support. Many accuse him of diluting biblical authority or positioning himself between Christ and believers—which is their consistent critique of Catholicism in general.

Among non-Catholic Christians overall, the split is closer, with 55% in support and 45% disapproving, largely hinging on their views of how closely religious institutions should align with American sovereignty and moral clarity.

Cultural Symbolism and National Identity

Online, the pope has become a cultural meme as well as a religious leader. MAGA-aligned posters often sarcastically declare, “Tariffs are working! Even the Pope is made in America.” These messages reflect a deeper symbolic point about American identity rebounding in 2025. To some, this is a cause for celebration. To others, it represents cultural overreach and the blurring of church and state lines.

Vatican City after electing an American Pope pic.twitter.com/bb0jmkpt7K

— Dividend Hero (@HeroDividend) May 8, 2025

There’s also a practical narrative emerging that Trump’s “America First” movement is reshaping expectations of leadership—even in Rome. While Pope Leo XIV may not align with MAGA ideologically, many view the fact that he’s American as an indication that nationalist momentum has cultural staying power.

Corruption, Allegations, and Weaponized Faith

Reactions to past allegations against the pope, particularly from his time in Peru and Chicago, are sharply divided. The core accusation is that during he failed to hold abusive clergy accountable. Among Catholics, 55% disapprove of his elevation on these grounds, while 45% view the criticism as politically motivated.

For conservatives already skeptical of the Vatican’s institutional integrity, these allegations reinforce a broader narrative of elite corruption—where accountability never applies at the top, even in the Church.

Among liberal Christians, 80% disapprove of the pope’s record and tone, citing concerns over transparency, abuse cover-ups, and doctrinal rigidity. Here, the discontent is rooted in the idea that the Church, like the state, has failed to modernize or fully reckon with its past.

For both sides, “corruption” is the rallying word—applied broadly to both religious and political institutions. Americans are critical of institutional corruption wherever it exists, including in the church.

Border Politics and the Immigration Flashpoint

One of the most polarized aspects of public reaction concerns immigration. Roughly 85% of conservatives reject the pope’s stance on the U.S. border, especially his alleged critiques of Trump’s policies and his perceived endorsement of immigration leniency.

This backlash is political more than religious. For the American right, border sovereignty is non-negotiable. The pope’s language around mercy and due process is seen as enabling an already broken system.

In contrast, about 80% of liberals celebrate the pope’s approach to migrant care, viewing it as a counterbalance to inhumane border enforcement. Among Catholics and Christians overall, the split is close—around 45% approval and 50% disapproval—reflecting a broader tension between Christian compassion and the reality of national security.

Many interpret the pope’s immigration comments as political dog whistles which affirm open borders and undermine Trump’s hardline immigration policies. The pope’s position makes him a symbolic figure in the battle over American identity and the rule of law.

Recently, woman identified as Shiloh Hendrix went viral online for using a racial slur against an allegedly autistic black child in a public park. Within days, she received hundreds of thousands of dollars in sympathetic crowdfunding via a GiveSendGo campaign.

The viral and controversial interaction quickly blew up into a political and racial proxy war. Progressives decry the incident as proof of lingering racism, and conservatives are split between defending Hendrix’s speech rights and condemning her behavior.

Shiloh Hendrix, a young white mother, insults a black child in an argument at the playground. Left-wing TikTok activists film her, post the video online - and start a digital hate hunt.
What follows is another chapter in the ethnic conflict in the USA. But this time everything… pic.twitter.com/acdvajtLgS

— Martin Sellner (@Martin_Sellner) May 2, 2025

Hendrix’s name has since become emblematic of cultural backlash. She is framed by supporters as a victim of cancel culture and woke targeting, while critics cast her as a symbol of emboldened bigotry in the age of digital incentivization. The fundraising success in her name turned what could have been a fleeting controversy into a referendum on race, speech, and the political realignment of victimhood.

This incident occurred shortly after another racial firestorm initiated by the murder of Austin Metcalf, a white teenager killed at a Texas track meet. Metcalf’s death received minimal mainstream media attention, prompting conservatives to call out racial double standards. This effect is compounded by reactions from the left and the right to Metcalf’s murderer’s crowdfunding efforts, now juxtaposed with Shiloh Hendrix’s.

Division and Vitriol

Online reaction to Hendrix’s actions, both in using the slur and creating a GiveSendGo, sharply divides public opinion.

Around 40-45% of right-leaning discussions express frustration that Hendrix became a folk hero for the wrong reasons—arguing that monetizing crass or criminal behavior damages conservatives and distracts from legitimate concerns.

However, around 30% strongly defend her on free speech grounds, claiming she had been targeted by an ideological lynch mob. This group also points out the hypocrisy of liberal reactions to Austin Metcalf, Hendrix, and anti-white racism.

What you're witnessing isn't a fundraiser.

You're witnessing White Guilt begin to die. pic.twitter.com/RlegOAk3xQ

— Daniel Concannon (@TooWhiteToTweet) May 1, 2025

The remaining third of right leaning voices are ambivalent, choosing to redirect the conversation toward issues like crime, voter suppression, and economic priorities.

Among liberal users, sentiment skewed sharply negative. More than 70% condemn Hendrix’s language and the crowdfunding campaign as an endorsement of racism. Many point to systemic bias and accuse conservatives of promoting a culture of grievance under the guise of “anti-wokeness.”

Double Standards and Selective Outrage

The muted response to the death of Austin Metcalf intensifies right-wing anger. Many see the lack of national media coverage or official statements as confirmation that outrage in America is racially curated.

While some reports claim the motive behind Metcalf’s death remains under investigation, critics online cite the case as a glaring example of institutional and media neglect when the racial dynamics don’t fit the approved narrative.

This perceived double standard has given rise to a new refrain among conservatives that if racial justice is real, then it must apply evenly. Failing to recognize tragedies like Metcalf’s while obsessively covering cases like Hendrix’s signals to many Americans that the system is fundamentally tilted.

So let me get this straight. This lady, Shiloh Hendrix, witnesses this unaccompanied and unsupervised autistic 5 year old kid taking things from her diaper bag. She calls the kid out for it and a child predator from Somalia just so happened to be hanging out at the park, where… pic.twitter.com/cDoBRXU2VE

— Stephen Odell (@StM_1979) May 1, 2025

Cultural Weaponization and Symbolic Crowdfunding

The GiveSendGo campaign for Shiloh Hendrix has become a case study in digital tribalism. Both sides of the aisle now financially reward figures caught in culture war flashpoints. Supporters frame this as fighting back against elite narratives and critics see it as incentivizing extremism and monetizing bad actions. In conservative circles, Hendrix is now shorthand for the backlash against cancel culture, media, and speech policing.

Even among committed conservatives, Hendrix’s case sparks unease. Some Republicans caution that defending incendiary rhetoric—especially when aimed at children—erodes credibility with important voter groups who may support border security and free-market economics but recoil from perceived cruelty.

Race, Policy, and Identity

Race remains at the center of political discourse, but the vocabulary has shifted.

Progressives focus on systemic inequity and the enduring legacies of oppression. Conservatives increasingly speak of reverse discrimination, media bias, and what they see as the weaponization of race for political control.

Affirmative action, DEI mandates, and woke corporate governance continue to serve as stand-ins for wider frustrations. To many voters, these policies feel like instruments of division. And yet, on the right, there’s a debate over whether opposing these programs means tolerating bigotry.

Hendrix’s defenders often place her in this exact frame—arguing that outrage against her is less about morality and more about liberal control over acceptable language and social norms. In this way, she functions less as an individual than as a placeholder for the broader reactionary impulse on the right.

The tide of opinion has been surging against the legacy media for some time. Now, self-serious media outlets congratulating themselves on their coverage of Joe Biden’s mental decline is drawing ridicule.

Americans say the mainstream media whitewashed and covered up President Biden’s cognitive decline but are now claiming credit for exposing it. Voters say events like the White House Correspondents Dinner show the press for what they are—courtiers protecting the palace.

The Dinner Party Problem

A subset of discussion about legacy media in general directly references the White House Correspondents Dinner. These comments present the dinner as an increasingly out of touch and self-congratulatory ritual.

Posts describe the dinner as “stagecraft,” “a media circus,” and “optics for the elite.” For many voters, it reinforces their belief that the press is too invested in political relationships to function as an adversarial force.

Americans view the media’s actions as evidence that media figures view themselves as elites, among the same class they are tasked with scrutinizing. The image of reporters in tuxedos joking with presidents and politicians while ignoring voter concerns plays poorly outside the Beltway. Among those under 35, the event is dismissed as a “ceremony for people who don’t have to worry about gas prices.”

The sentiment is widespread among voter groups. In all conversations across multiple topics, approximately 60% express overt disdain for legacy media institutions. Only 15% discuss them neutrally or positively.

The Silent Collapse of a President

The coverage—or more accurately, the glaring non-coverage—of President Biden’s mental decline in the waning years of his presidency is a flagship grievance for many people who are critical of a politically captures media. Posts mocking his cognitive performance often come with a caveat: the media enabled the problem by refusing to acknowledge it.

The contrast is frequently drawn with Trump. Commenters note that Trump’s every misspoken word are front-page news, while Biden’s slurred sentences, visible confusion, and dazed appearances were waved away as “normal aging.” When Biden stumbled through a speech or forgot where he was, outlets used euphemisms like elder statesman,” “slower delivery,” “candid moments.”

That reluctance to apply equal scrutiny to partisan powers has damaged institutional credibility. A prominent refrain across discussions is: “If Trump had done this, it would be nonstop coverage.” Voters believe the media shields Democrats out of political loyalty, not journalistic rigor.

MIG Reports data shows:

• 60% of discussion is negative about how the media covers Democrats, particularly mentioning Biden’s cognitive decline.
• 25% are frustrated at selective framing, especially independents and younger demographics who resent legacy power.
• 15% defend Biden, relying on either moral relativism—“Trump is worse” —or casual dismissal of the media’s failure to cover his decline.

Generational and Partisan Drift

The divide in media trust is widening in both ideological and age groups. Americans under 35 are moving decisively away from legacy outlets. They say they consume content through decentralized platforms like Truth Social, Bluesky, YouTube, and X. Their tone is cynical but informed. They don’t just reject legacy narratives—they deconstruct them in real time.

Older conservatives remain critical of the media but are more likely to recall a time when institutions operated under some assumption of balance. That nostalgia has been replaced by the grim realization that the press now performs its credibility, rather than earns it.

This generational shift is cultural and logistical. Young voters don’t wait for evening segments or Sunday roundtables. They dissect gaffes in chats and post replies, repost contradictory headlines on TikTok, and spread independent analyses with more reach than a primetime CNN spot.

Narrative Management as Policy

Critics no longer view media behavior as lazy or unprofessional. They view it as calculated. Events like the Correspondents Dinner, therefore, is confirmation that the press sees itself as part of the ruling class. Americans say Biden’s gaffes were not ignored accidentally—they were actively managed.

Overall, voters believe that media institutions are actually succeeding at their real goal, which is to serve as narrative enforcers for the political elite.

Even among moderate Democrats and left-leaning voters, fatigue is growing. Defending the media is no longer an act of civic pride, but one of desperation, more performative than backed by conviction.

Recently, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) reported more than 9,000 antisemitic incidents in 2024—a record-setting figure amplified in publications like Axios. From defaced synagogues to aggressive campus protests, the raw data confirms a surge that policymakers, pundits, and advocacy groups are concerned about.

But beyond vague gestures toward the Trump administration and MAGA voters, news reports are not clear about why these incidents are rising. MIG Reports data on public sentiment, however, sheds light on who Americans blame for increased antisemitism.

How Voters Are Assigning Blame

Based on public discussion covering the Israel-Palestine conflict and domestic political discourse, MIG Reports data shows:

• 51% of voters blame the political left, citing AIPAC, Democratic elites, and institutional media as enablers of narrative suppression.
• 35% blame the political right, associating the rise with MAGA populism, far-right rhetoric, or conspiratorial undertones.
• 14% attribute the trend to systemic or fringe sources, including political polarization, globalist influence, or cultural rot.

While both sides generally agree that antisemitism is rising, most voters are debating why this is happening and who is to blame .

Axios Addresses the Fire, Not the Fuel

Media outlets like Axios note that 58% of antisemitic incidents were Israel-related—not restricted to Jewish Americans. The left also admits the most significant spikes of antisemitic incidents occurred on college campuses, which is up 84% year-over-year. That finding matches MIG Reports data, where voter discussions focus on universities as a hotbed for speech suppression and ideological purity tests masquerading as activism.

Mainstream media reports often suggest that conservative responses—particularly Trump’s attempt to defund universities—could “backfire,” making Jewish people more vulnerable. The implication is that crackdown efforts, like defunding liberal institutions or deporting foreign student protesters, may escalate resentment rather than resolve it.

On the surface, legacy reporting acknowledges the problem’s geography (campuses) and ideological triggers (anti-Israel rhetoric) but stops short of placing the political blame where MIG data shows voters already have—on a progressive cultural regime that created the conditions for this explosion.

Campus Chaos and Israel-Centricity

There is real common ground on both sides, however.

• Campus radicalism is central. Both sides recognize universities as a primary breeding ground for the shift from protest to hate.
• Israel is the flashpoint. Over half of all antisemitic incidents now occur in the context of Israel discourse—whether in defense of or in opposition to it.

But even here, the interpretations split. Some take a defensive posture, worried that harsh policies targeting pro-Palestinian protestors might feed the problem. Others say Trump administration policies are long overdue.

The 35% of voters in MIG Reports data who blame the right for rising antisemitism also focus on the Israel discussion. Irael supporters point out that antisemitism can come from both the pro-Palestine left and the anti-Israel right.

Strategic Messaging vs. Public Perception

The Axios report framing is institutionally cautious, focusing on incident spikes while subtly insulating the structures that voters say cultivate ideological extremism. Mainstream outlets warn about government overreach but gloss over the concerns of those who say the institutions themselves crossed boundaries by protecting terrorist sympathizers.

Many online say countermeasures to combat strains of progressive leftism which infect institutions have not gone far enough. This group fears normalizing antisemitism in the name of tolerance is exactly the kind of ideological contradiction the left is known for.

Israel specific MIG Reports data sets:

• 40% blame AIPAC and its lobbying influence
• 30% blame Democratic political and media figures
• 20% blame Trump’s Israel-first approach
• 10% point to global Zionist influence or conspiratorial control

Voters across ideological lines are alarmed by how criticism of Israel often is equated with antisemitism, effectively shutting down debate. The underlying fear is that antisemitism has become a political weapon for some on both sides.