Two federal investigations—one involving the January 6 pipe bombs and the other concerning cocaine found at the White House—are getting different reactions among politically engaged Americans.

The division of public attention, trust, and narrative weight between the two investigations is stark, damaged by perceptions of institutional legitimacy. Among right-leaning voters, these investigations both seek justice and serve as political weapons.

The Pipe Bomb Probe

The FBI investigation into the pipe bombs planted near the RNC and DNC headquarters on January 6 is limited withing larger public discourse regarding the FBI. Online chatter suggests that most politically engaged voters are tuning out because they see the investigation as just another chapter in a series of partisan legal pursuits.

Mentions of the pipe bomb probe are sparse across major forums, and when they do appear, they’re usually folded into wider accusations of lawfare. Many voters assume the investigation has been shelved, not because the case is solved, but because it no longer serves the political narrative.

This absence in the discourse speaks volumes. For much of the right, the pipe bomb case is largely about institutional convenience. It surfaces when useful, disappears when not. Some also say their trust in an FBI investigation is low, regardless of the outcome.

Even among those who still believe in investigating political violence, trust in the FBI’s impartiality has eroded. Many suspect the Bureau would be more aggressive if the evidence implicated Trump or his allies. Without a target from the preferred narrative, the investigation lacks momentum.

Whose Cocaine was at the White House?

By contrast, the White House cocaine investigation is energizing online conservatives. The discovery of a small bag of cocaine at the White House in 2023 initially fizzled when the Secret Service declared it had no leads. But the FBI’s decision to reopen the case now reignites speculation and outrage.

Roughly 60-65% of online posts assigning blame focus on Hunter Biden, whose history with substance abuse and foreign business dealings makes him an easy focal point. Around 15-20% of mentions name Kamala Harris. She is not always a direct suspect, but often a stand-in for the Democratic establishment and its perceived hypocrisy.

Most on the right see this case as one of elite impunity. The absence of fingerprints or DNA evidence fuels beliefs that the investigation was deliberately soft-pedaled to protect the Biden family. Voters are especially suspicious of the lack of evidence in a highly monitored and secure location like the White House. Even now, people see the lack of charges or suspects as proof of selective prosecution.

The tone of the conversation is intensely emotional. Voters use terms like “cover-up,” “two-tiered justice,” and “banana republic” to describe how the Biden administration has handled this scandal. Calls for independent probes and even defunding the FBI are gaining traction as symbols of conservative anger.

The Right-Wing Read on the FBI

Both investigations—one largely dormant, the other highly polarizing—highlight what many conservatives see as systemic imbalance in federal law enforcement. They say the FBI prioritizes partisan targets while shielding political allies.

On one side, investigations into Trump’s orbit (including January 6) are treated with full-throttle urgency. On the other, clear signs of misconduct by the Biden family—whether through foreign business deals, substance abuse, or the mishandling of classified materials—are slow-walked or ignored entirely. The disparity feeds the perception of a two-tiered justice system.

Many on the right are also growing cynical about Trump’s FBI and DOJ, despite these investigations which many have called for over the years. They fear MAGA appointees, however strongly they speak against institutional rot, will not make meaningful reforms. Voters cite cases like Jeffrey Epstein and the repeated failure of Trump’s cabinet to deliver on promises of transparency and justice.

Mentions of Donald Trump and Hunter Biden dominate the discourse, with both figures serving as cultural signposts for liberal and conservative ideological wars. To Trump supporters, these investigations are only as good as their outcomes. The cocaine case has become shorthand for everything wrong with Washington. Unless there are convictions, many fear big talk from anti-establishment Republicans will mean nothing without charges.

The Biden-Harris administration’s border is a focal point of the election. Between Oct. 10-17, thousands of voters voiced their strong opinions on the impact of Democratic policies. They link immigration to crime, economic hardship, and political manipulation.

General Sentiment on Immigration

A frequent criticism of the administration is that Biden and Harris allow “open border” policies. Voters particularly point out rising criminal activity and increased human trafficking. They are angry about rising violent crime rates, directly blaming Harris.

Some also scorched Harris’s comments on Fox News, in which she failed to take responsibility for immigration failures during her administration. Those on the right share and discuss a response from the mother of Jocelyn Nungaray—a victim of illegal immigrant crime. She criticized Harris saying, “She is completely full of it. She is not a sincere woman at all. She has no sympathy, no empathy to her."

JUST IN: The mother of 12-year-old Jocelyn Nungaray unleashes on Kamala Harris, blames Harris for her daughter's r*pe and de*th.

Alexis Nungaray got emotional as she ripped Harris for her half-apology during the Bret Baier interview.

"[Kamala] is completely full of it. She is… pic.twitter.com/RJ61ww0pLy

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) October 18, 2024

Voter conversations often focus on high-profile incidents, such as gang violence perpetrated by criminal groups like the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang. These and other violent crimes are frequently mentioned as examples of the dangers of Harris’s policies.

Beyond the outrage over criminal violence, discussions reveal a growing fear that unchecked immigration is overwhelming social services. Americans fear towns and cities in places like Indiana and Pennsylvania are becoming strained by immigration, just as border states have been for many years.

Major Discussion Themes

Illegal Immigration

Illegal immigration dominates the discussions with frustration and fear over its consequences. Americans say illegal immigrants are breaking U.S. laws, taking jobs, resources, and opportunities from citizens.

Voters blame the Biden-Harris administration for prioritizing illegal immigrants over Americans. There are also calls for more aggressive enforcement measures, including stricter deportations and policies like E-Verify to curb illegal hiring practices.

Border Security

Americans want a secure border. They view the failures of the current administration as directly responsible for violent crime, drug trafficking, cartel activity, and economic instability. For many, the election is a critical opportunity to correct these failures by ousting Harris, preventing her from further devastating the country with a border crisis.

Cartels and Criminal Activity

People also believe the administration turns a blind eye to cartels which exploit the porous border. They say Democrats tacitly approve of the influx of drugs and dangerous individuals by their inaction. Discussions focus on the human costs of these policies like rising drug-related deaths and violence by gangs in places like Aurora.

Economic and Social Strain

There are concerns that illegal immigration puts undue pressure on local resources, particularly in areas already struggling economically. Schools, healthcare systems, and social services are often overburdened by the influx of migrants. There are more and more communities struggling to maintain public safety and provide for their residents.

Political Manipulation and Distrust in Leadership

Many say Democrats use immigration as a tool to shift the electoral balance by allowing illegal immigrants to vote—either illegally or by with amnesty. Those on the right are especially suspicious that Democrats are undermining national security for political gain. This sentiment fuels much of the criticism directed at both Biden and Harris. This narrative positions immigration a broader ideological and electoral battleground.

MIG Reports analysis of social media discussions on the influence of Mexican cartels highlight domestic security, immigration, and the 2024 election. Conversations spiked just prior to Independence Day, emphasizing fear of terrorist attacks and broader security anxieties.

Immigration debates criticize DHS border management and polarized views of child trafficking. Discontent with political leaders like Joe Biden and Alejandro Mayorkas is high, with reforms like those proposed by Project 2025 gaining traction. Eroded trust in federal agencies will likely significantly influence voter behavior ahead of the election.

The level of discussion about cartels correlates with American sentiment on the matter. This suggests many Americans are familiar with and hypersensitive to cartel activity. Most people are extremely critical of ongoing issues with child and drug trafficking, violent crime, and the economic impact caused by illegal immigrants who are often brought by cartels.

Immigration Issues

Voter discussions around immigration issues are dominated by false asylum seekers and international human rights issues, and government policies allowing entry and accommodation in the U.S.

Sentiment Trends

There is strong opposition to Biden’s lenient and poorly managed immigration policies. Critics argue illegal immigrants and false asylum seekers are exploiting the system, leading to negative consequences for U.S. citizens. They cite impacts like job losses and increased crime rates.

An increasing number of Americans believe the Biden administration providing accommodations and financial support to illegals is unconscionable. Voters dislike taxpayer funds being used to put illegal immigrants in hotels while American veterans remain homeless.

Many Americans clarify their stance is not “anti-immigration.” They say asylum claims for legitimate refugees should remain possible. However, they also emphasize the current system allowing rampant fraud, waste, and abuse of asylum polices.

Partisan Viewpoints

Conservatives are more likely to criticize immigration policies and express nationalist sentiments. Liberal leaning voters tend to emphasize human rights and legal due process for asylum seekers. However, more Democrats are beginning to acknowledge the border as a serious issue for America.

Undecided and Independent voters seem to be navigating these polarizing issues with a level of caution. Their inclinations in the upcoming general election may be heavily influenced by how Trump versus Democrats discuss the border.

Swing votes likely hinge on promises of comprehensive immigration reforms that balance national security concerns with humanitarian obligations. They also want coherent foreign policies which address international human rights issues without compromising U.S. interests.

Border Security

Heightened tensions at the southern border and ongoing debates about how we treat migrants are also contentious. Most Americans want stricter border controls and many even support mass deportations. Voters often cite crimes committed by illegal immigrants and the strains on public resources.

Progressives and open-borders libertarians oppose an enforcement-centric approach to the border. They often hold a humanitarian perspective, advocating for more compassionate immigration policies and pointing out the contributions immigrants make to society and the economy. However, these viewpoints are growing less common.

Sentiment Trends

Discussions around the upcoming elections are heated, with strong sentiments on both sides. Democrats and Republicans are firmly entrenched in their respective viewpoints, often resorting to hyperbolic language to demonize the opposition.

Rhetoric is particularly intense around Donald Trump and Joe Biden, as both sides use every opportunity to point out failures and potential misconducts, whether factual or perceived.

Partisan Viewpoints

Undecided and Independent voters are disillusioned. They express frustration with the current political race and its candidates. They see partisanship as overshadowing genuine policy debates about the border.

Moderates seem wary of both major parties, citing concerns over corruption, inefficiency, and a lack of real solutions. Their online discourse often hints at a desire for a third option, or at least for the existing candidates to address practical solutions rather than engaging in partisan bickering.

There is also widespread use of memes and exaggerated scenarios to express political frustrations and satire. For example, people often mention ice cream in discussions about President Biden, trivializing his image to highlight his increasingly obvious decline. This mocking discourse is prevalent with younger demographics who use humor to cope with political disillusionment.

Drug and Human Trafficking

Americans are increasingly worried about the fentanyl crisis, child trafficking, the economic turmoil caused by cartel activity. Many people criticize political figures and the media for deflection attention away from the drug crisis and horrific trafficking stories.

Sentiment Trends

Voters express deep concern about America’s fentanyl crisis, with many attributing the problem to an alleged partnership between Chinese entities and Mexican cartels. They also suggest this nefarious union is facilitated by Democratic open border policies.

Many people discuss the issue as an epidemic responsible for untold deaths, touching nearly all Americans in some capacity. This severe problem deepens public anxiety about cartel activity across the southern border.

Economic struggles, particularly inflation, persist as a critical discussion point. Many voice frustrations over rising fuel prices, increased living costs, and stagnant wages. These economic anxieties are amplified by concerns over rising crime, which voters often attribute to illegal immigrant offenders.

The topic of human trafficking, particularly child trafficking, invokes strong emotional responses across the demographic spectrum. It is often brought up with discussions of crime and border security. People view trafficking as a rampant underground industry that profits from vulnerable populations. The increase in human trafficking statistics is frequently cited as evidence of governance failures, often linked to broader criticisms of the Biden administration.

Partisan Viewpoints

Demographic analysis shows older, more conservative voters are most vocal about border security and crime. They emphasize a return to more stringent immigration policies. Younger voters and liberal-leaning demographics, while also concerned about these issues, tend to focus more on systemic reforms rather than punitive measures.

The division extends to discussions about leadership, with many expressing nostalgia for Trump-era border policies.

Undecided and Independent voters appear to be swayed by trafficking and cartel narratives. Their inclinations are shaped by who they believe offers the most comprehensive solutions to these urgent issues. Such voters currently exhibit a blend of apprehension and skepticism regarding both major political parties.

Americans are unified in their negativity toward Mexican cartels and, to a lesser extent, border security. But disillusionment with both political parties indicates a fluid election landscape with potential for significant shifts as November draws nearer. At this stage, it seems likely voters will respond to candidate stances on border control, economic recovery plans, and concrete actions against human trafficking.

Americans are reacting to California providing plastic straws in free drug kits for addicts, despite banning them in general use over environmental impact claims. This contradiction is generating public reactions of ridicule and disgust.

Many people are pointing out the inconsistency in policy implementation. Critics say banning plastic straws for environmental reasons while supplying them freely to drug addicts reveals a lack of conviction in California's environmental priorities. This contradictory stance also leads some to believe California’s stated reasons for its policies are disingenuous and politically motivated.

A viral video showing what is provided in California’s free drug kits elicited reactions of disbelief and anger. Many people criticize programs that claim to make drug use “safer” or that safe use fights addiction. They say these programs simply enable addicts at the taxpayer’s expense. All the while, the state penalizes average citizens for the alleged environmental impact of drinking out of plastic straws.

To fight climate change California Democrats took away plastic straws…

But to fight drug addiction they give free drug kits with plastic straws.

Make it make fvcking sense.
pic.twitter.com/u38JdT4DRy

— I Meme Therefore I Am 🇺🇸 (@ImMeme0) May 17, 2024

Arguments About Hypocritical Policies

Some voices support the state including plastic straws in “safe drug kits.” They claim it is a pragmatic approach to harm reduction. Advocates argue providing these kits, which aim to minimize health risks for drug users, is a necessary public health measure. They claim the immediate health benefits outweigh any environmental concerns, stressing the primary goal is to save lives and reduce the spread of diseases.

These discussions also bleed into broader debates about the effectiveness of California's environmental policies and governance. Some are skeptical about the long-term impact of banning plastic straws, viewing it as a superficial and performative measure.

There are also some who support climate initiatives who say there are more important systemic environmental issues to address. They argue for a more comprehensive approach to tackling plastic pollution and climate change rather than focusing on smaller, symbolic actions.

Criticisms About Government Spending

When voters learn of plastic straws being provided free in drug kits, many react with anger at tax dollar spending and misplaced government priorities. Critics say taxpayer dollars could be better used elsewhere, criticizing such a controversial use of resources. Many suggest the funds and efforts invested in harm reduction are ineffective and patronizing to citizens in need of help.

Progressive voters who support the harm reduction approach highlight their belief that marginalized communities are disproportionately affected by drug use. They claim these groups need compassionate and immediate care. They also advocate for integrating harm reduction efforts with environmental policies, which can lead to more holistic and equitable outcomes.

Resistance to “Harm Reduction” and Regulations

Right leaning and conservative voters are more likely to criticize government spending on supposed “harm reduction” initiatives. Often the same voters who criticize environmental plastic straw bans, this group views public funding for drug kits as a heinous perpetuation of the drug addiction epidemic—especially in blue cities and states.

Many argue the government should focus on addressing core issues underlying drug addiction like border security or comprehensive rehabilitation programs. They say facilitating safer ways to consume drugs is only detrimental. This viewpoint asserts harm reduction enables and legitimizes drug use rather than helping Americans to overcome it.

These Americans also tend to view the larger straw ban as an overreach, questioning the government's role in regulating everyday items and behaviors. They see a sharp hypocrisy in government facilitation for drug addicts but restrictions on all other citizens when it comes to straw use.