With “Pride Month” over, Americans pivot to celebrate Independence Day. Public discourse reveals a divide in how citizens interpret the meaning of pride, liberty, and national identity. Online commentary over the past two days shows one side celebrating identity and inclusion and the other rallying around tradition, unity, and the symbolism of the American flag.

For many conservative-leaning Americans, the end of Pride is a relief and reclamation. July is viewed as a moment to restore focus on the country's founding principles—faith, family, sovereignty—not fringe social causes. There is enthusiasm for “real pride” marked by traditional patriotism, military valor, and economic self-determination.

Sentiment Overview

The emotional and rhetorical incongruity between Pride and Independence Day is stark. The two celebrations trigger opposing instincts and mobilize different coalitions.

Pride Month Sentiment

• Celebratory but increasingly defensive.
• Appeals to inclusion, civil rights, and identity recognition.
• Centered on resilience, minority progress, and resistance to regression.
• Concerned about government overreach and threats to healthcare and education access.
• Language is often personal and historical using visibility and equality narratives.

Independence Day Sentiment

• Assertive, patriotic, often triumphalist.
• Appeals to tradition, faith, and national unity.
• Focused on border security, economic nationalism, and constitutional rights.
• Framed as a corrective to political correctness and cultural fragmentation.
• Language is blunt, symbolic, and emotive—full of flags, emojis, and slogans like “America is back!”

Public moods suggest the transition to July shifts the energy away from progressive advocacy toward a reassertion of traditional American values. Many online posts reject Pride altogether, with phrases like “No Pride Month here. Ever!!!” and “My pride is the US flag” By contrast, Pride advocates remain defiant, pointing to an ongoing fight for dignity and legal protections.

Notable sentiment patterns

• Many right-leaning users call for the end of "identity month fatigue," claiming June has become a forced celebration.
• Others embrace July as a cultural reset, saying now the real pride month begins—American Pride.
• Religious conservatives frame the transition as a moral realignment, invoking biblical principles and divine order.
• Pride defenders highlight threats to Medicaid, gender-affirming care, and anti-discrimination laws embedded in current legislative fights.

Emotionally, Independence Day evokes triumph and authority. Pride evokes empathy and personal rights. The contrast of these moods fuels polarization, with little overlap in vocabulary or vision. For many Americans, July 4 has become about fighting back.

Themes in Public Discourse

The ideological split between Pride Month and Independence Day reveals a broader battle over what constitutes “American values.” These events act as cultural amplifiers, pushing competing visions of the nation into sharper focus.

Pride-aligned voices emphasize

• Inclusion as patriotism: Arguing that equality for LGBTQ individuals is essential to fulfilling the promises of liberty and justice.
• Ongoing struggle: Pride is seen as a reminder of resistance, not a fully realized triumph.
• Opposition to censorship and rollback: Concerns around anti-LGBTQ legislation under Trump 2.0, parental rights bills, and cuts to social safety nets are central.

Pro-America voices emphasize

• Restoration of order: Reclaiming “real” pride tied to the nation’s founding ideals.
• God, country, and borders: A return to natural law, biblical values, and masculine patriotism.
• Fiscal responsibility and sovereignty: Support for legislation like the Big Beautiful Bill, which they believe rights economic wrongs and restores national control.

Some voters on the right argue that Independence Day offers an opportunity to “de-program” from identity politics and remind Americans that freedom was earned through sacrifice, not social recognition. For them, Pride Month is symbolic of entitlement culture, whereas July 4 embodies discipline, unity, and historical greatness.

Competing Slogans and Symbols

• Pride: "Love is love", “We’re still here”
• Independence Day: 🇺🇸, “America First”, “God Bless the USA”

This symbolic divide illustrates a deeper philosophical one—between an America that evolves through recognition of difference and one that reasserts traditional identity.

Impact and Polarization

The cultural shift from June to July acts as a flashpoint, intensifying polarization.

Observable impacts in the online discourse:

• Many express relief that June is over and view July as a time to “reclaim pride.”
• Short, emoji-laden declarations like “America is back!” dominate Independence Day conversations.
• Even some centrist or liberal-leaning voters express skepticism about Pride Month’s corporatization.

The vibe shift from June to July reveals that America’s national identity is contested terrain. The divide is emotional, generational, and moral. While some see July 4 as a celebration of universal freedom, others see it as a moment when their freedoms feel most precarious.

Several military family reactions recently followed Vice President Kamala Harris's criticism of former President Donald Trump visiting Arlington National Cemetery. In a statement, Harris condemned Trump for allegedly politicizing a sacred space by filming a video at the memorial. This sparked intense debate among voters. Her statement, which painted Trump as disrespectful to Gold Star families, led to polarized reactions, with many taking sides based on their views of military honor and leadership.

As Vice President, I have had the privilege of visiting Arlington National Cemetery several times. It is a solemn place; a place where we come together to honor American heroes who have made the ultimate sacrifice in service of this nation.

It is not a place for politics.

And…

— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) August 31, 2024

MIG Reports analysis of the controversy shows partisan divides and intense anger directed at Harris from military families.

Military Families Support Trump

Among those invested in the PR battle between Harris and Trump regarding Afghanistan Gold Star families, Trump has strong support. Those who lost loved ones in the Afghanistan withdrawal are particularly venomous against the Biden-Harris administration, whom they blame for their tragic losses.

Following Harris’s statement, Trump began tweeting video clips from Gold Star families thanking him for his attendance and criticizing Harris.

Mark Schmitz, Father of Lance Corporal Jared M. Schmitz… https://t.co/CHNRzcTa0J pic.twitter.com/pRLF9tS7Jn

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 1, 2024

Gold Star and other military families are quick to defend Trump’s Arlington visit, saying he was invited, while Kamala Harris has yet to mention any of the names of the fallen. Many of these families highlighted how Trump had been there for them since the tragic Kabul airport bombing, with one father calling Harris’s statements “heinous, vile, and disgusting.”

The deep emotional connection these families have with Trump contrasts sharply with their perception of Harris and the Biden administration. Many Gold Star families feel betrayed by how the Afghanistan withdrawal was handled. They view Trump’s actions as demonstrative of his respect and empathy.

Voters Talking About Abbey Gate Favor Trump

Among those discussing the Abbey Gate anniversary and Gold Star families, there are political divisions. Conversations focus on the role of leadership and respect for military service.

MIG Reports data shows:

• 62% of Americans discussing the controversy side with Trump, viewing his Arlington visit as a respectful gesture at the request of Gold Star families.
• 25% of voters echo Harris, questioning Trump’s sincerity, accusing him of using the cemetery visit for political gain.
• 13% of the conversation—mostly moderates—express mixed feelings, often criticizing both Trump and Harris.

Trump supporters accuse Harris of lacking empathy and politicizing an event meant to honor fallen soldiers. They use words like "heinous," "disgusting," and "shameful,” illustrating the intensity of their opposition to Harris.

Harris supporters accuse Trump as setting the stage for the chaotic Afghanistan withdrawal, suggesting he bears responsibility for the resulting deaths. These anti-Trump voters use terms like "surrender" and "political maneuvering" to describe his actions.

Moderates, while critical of both Trump and Harris, call for more transparency and accountability from both leaders. Their comments highlight the complexities of the military withdrawal, with some noting Harris’s statement may be warranted, but poorly timed or delivered.

Many Americans Don’t Care

While most discussions specifically focused on Trump’s visit to Arlington National Cemetery express support for his attendance, many Americans seem unaware of or uninvested in veterans’ causes.

The overall national sentiment toward Trump and Harris regarding Afghanistan favors Harris.

• On the day of Harris’s statement, she saw 47% approval on the military compared to Trump’s 44%.
• Regarding Afghanistan, Harris’s support on Aug. 31 was 48% to Trump’s 44%.

Despite this disparity in approval, MIG Reports analysis suggests Harris supporters focus more on defending her against Trump than supporting the Biden-Harris administration’s actions regarding Afghanistan.

• Around 60% of comments from Kamala Harris supporters reflect a defensive stance regarding her involvement in the Afghanistan withdrawal. They say the situation was inherited from the Trump administration, emphasizing the pre-negotiated terms with the Taliban as the root cause of the chaotic exit.
• Approximately 25% of Harris supporters react strongly against criticisms of Harris, using phrases like "blatant lie" or "sick lie." This suggests a significant effort to counter negative views of Harris's role. This group aims to protect her image as a competent leader in national security.
• Only 15% of express pride in the decisions made by Harris and Biden, viewing the withdrawal as a necessary step to refocus on domestic issues, despite the challenges involved.

The general sentiment among Harris supporters is predominantly characterized by a protective and reactive stance. They focus on shifting blame and defending her reputation. While there's a minority celebrating her leadership, the majority are engaged in defending against criticisms.

Potential Political Fallout

The fallout from the Abbey Gate memorial controversy underscores deep divisions among voters on military issues and leadership. For many, especially military families, Trump’s actions have cemented their loyalty. This group view Harris’s statement as tone-deaf and disrespectful.

Harris supporters meanwhile argue that concerns about politicizing military memorials are valid. They continue to criticize Trump’s supposed role in the Afghanistan withdrawal, which occurred during the Biden administration, while dismissing any claims of incompetence or disrespect from Harris or Biden.

This controversy highlights the ongoing importance of national security and military sacrifice in shaping voter preferences. For military veterans and their families, these issues may play a decisive role tipping support toward Trump. However, Americans writ large may not be as moved by controversies in which they do not feel personally invested.

The American public continues to languish in negativity about inflation, a sustained cause for attention and concern. The reality of economic hardship for average citizens causes talk of high prices, financial insecurity, and uncertain futures.

MIG Reports data shows voters are unhappy and fear the country's economic trajectory. While sentiment is polarized, significant blame is directed at the Biden-Harris administration for worsening inflation and mismanaging the economy.

Mortgage applications are down, and loan delinquencies are up, causing many voters to express a sense of despair.

Mortgage applications dropped another 4%, despite rates being at their lowest level since February 2024. pic.twitter.com/jADX1k00u1

— TheStreet (@TheStreet) July 24, 2024

A Dollar Only Goes So Far

Conversations regularly turn to the noticeable increase in cost of living. Voters mention record high grocery prices, high gas prices, housing costs, and recent market crashes. They blame their financial struggles on runaway inflation and the resulting erosion of purchasing power. This, combined with wage stagnation, degrades quality of life.

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) is a specific point of contention. Many view it as misleading, criticizing it for exacerbating inflation rather than alleviating it. Those associating the IRA with "reparation-style payments for minority farmers" further fuels debate, as some use it as an example of misallocated resources.

Kamala Harris and Joe Biden receive much of the negativity and blame. Terms like "Kamala’s economy" and "Bidenomics" are used with "economic shambles" and "market downturn." People feel the Biden-Harris administration is causing their current economic woes.

Voters discuss Kamala Harris’s role as VP and often being the deciding vote in passing key legislation like the American Rescue Plan and the Inflation Reduction Act. They view her as a primary cause of the economic challenges they face.

Americans are Demoralized

Voter sentiment is predominantly critical and pessimistic. The use words like "failure," "crisis," "disaster," to describe the Biden-Harris economy. A prevailing sense of displeasure and frustration crosses party lines as Republicans and Democrats both feel the economic hardship. There is a sense of urgency and demand for change with calls to vote for Trump and save America.

The predominant sentiment is that current economic policies are failing. Voters deny Biden’s claims of fixing the economy, calling it an inflation crisis and expressing disillusionment. Most households are concerned about the future, with many comments forecasting continued financial difficulties and a looming recession.

Despite media and Democrats attempting to blame the economy on Trump-era tax cuts, voter call for more cuts. They also say things like, "drill baby drill," suggesting the U.S. tap into domestic oil. Many also say the economic situation could be improved by closing the border.

There are some defending the administration, emphasizing benefits like "capping insulin prices" and "creating good-paying union jobs." However, these voices are fewer and often drowned out by the overwhelming criticism.

Drowning in Debt

Federal Reserve data illustrates the extent of economic hardship Americans are facing. Since 2021, loan delinquency rates have increased across real estate, consumer, and credit card loans. This mirrors complaints average Americans have of rising costs of living and stagnant wages.

Voters blame the Biden-Harris administration for high interest rates and skyrocketing prices. The confluence of economic pressures including poor job prospects and reduced purchasing power makes it difficult for Americans to meet their financial obligations.

As charge-off rates, which is a percentage of defaulted credit, climb, banks are writing off more debts as uncollectible. This is a sign of financial distress that is echoed in public sentiment. The upward trends in the graph parallels voter criticisms, depicting the tangible effects of inflation on people’s finances.

The bleak economic outlook is supported by federal data, validating people’s fears of recession or even depression. 

Implications Going Forward

Rising delinquency and charge-off rates, especially in consumer sectors, suggest potential economic mismanagement. Inflationary pressures caused by monetary policy and reduced purchasing power cause many to demand new leadership. This situation is aggravated by high interest rates, making borrowing more expensive for individuals and businesses.

Increasing reliance on credit and the rise in delinquencies does not inspire confidence among voters. Their high living costs and potential employment challenges could increase loan defaults. This may also lead to a cyclical problem of decreased consumer confidence and economic slowdown.

With mortgage applications down, mortgage loan delinquency increasing, and sustained high real estate prices, American families will not easily afford a home. Business investments may also decrease, and a real estate market crash could spell disaster.

Americans believe worsening financial conditions for both consumers and businesses are critically urgent. Some say rising debt delinquency could be mitigated with better policy interventions. They call for a renewed focus on reducing inflation, stabilizing interest rates, cutting taxes, and improving the job market. Voters want a president who can address these concerns promptly and effectively.

The DoJ and FBI’s recent declaration that there is “nothing more to see” regarding the Epstein case is causing severe backlash—most intensely from within the Republican and MAGA base. For years, high-profile Trump-aligned figures like Pam Bondi, Kash Patel, and Dan Bongino publicly stoked expectations that the infamous Epstein client list would expose a cabal of global elites. Now, with official statements denying the existence of such a list or additional evidence, officials are under heavy fire.

The sudden pivot is perceived by voters as blatant betrayal. MAGA voters view its defining feature as fierce opposition to corruption, secrecy, and institutional rot. When figures who promised sunlight now seem to offer obfuscation, the base responds with open revolt.

"The List is on My Desk”

Few political soundbites fester as grossly as Pam Bondi’s assertion that she had the Epstein client list “sitting on my desk.” That moment is now a rallying cry for transparency. Kash Patel and Dan Bongino amplified the narrative, claiming that thousands of hours of footage, damning names, and evidence would be released. These were not casual remarks but foundational to the populist movement’s anti-elite posture.

Those statements were echoed by conservative influencers, reinforced in campaign messaging, and absorbed into the base’s sense of justice. For many, the Epstein files represented a promised reckoning to expose elite criminality.

• Bondi’s “on my desk” claim is now cited in nearly every critical thread, often in disbelief or derision.
• Patel’s earlier vow to release the list “on day one” has been replaced by blanket denials.
• Bongino, once seen as a truth-teller, is now viewed by many as a sellout to the same system he once attacked.

Betrayal, Rage, and Demands for Resignation

MIG Reports data shows:

• 95% of comments referencing Pam Bondi are critical, with many calling for her resignation.
• 93% of posts mentioning Kash Patel are negative, with users labeling him a “traitor” and “pedo protector.”
• 87% of responses to Dan Bongino are condemnatory, describing him as a coward, liar, or deep state actor.

• The primary sentiments toward all three officials are anger, distrust, and disbelief.

Many voters openly mock the reversal, citing the supposed existence of videos, flight logs, and files that have now are mysteriously irrelevant. The phrase “nothing more to see” has become a sarcastic punchline, used to highlight belief in an organized cover-up.

• Social media is flooded with calls for immediate resignations.
• Accusations range from bureaucratic incompetence to outright criminal complicity.
• Some now speculate that even Trump is being shielded by this reversal, pointing to his long-known connections to Epstein.

The result is a political trust crisis with no clear resolution. The administration’s shift on Epstein has damaged reputations and fractured the trust with the base. What remains is a volatile, disillusioned voter bloc demanding answers and consequences.

Crisis of Credibility Within the Base

The backlash worsens a breakdown in trust between key figures in the Trump administration and the MAGA base. Dan Bongino, Kash Patel, and Pam Bondi are not fringe actors but represent central pillars of the movement. Their perceived retreat from earlier bold claims causes cognitive dissonance among supporters. Now, they’re cast as indistinguishable from the deep state they vowed to dismantle.

Many are also becoming skeptical of Trump himself, following his comments to the press about moving on from Epstein questions. Some say it makes him look implicated in Epstein’s wrongs. Some say there are other reasons President Trump has signed off on burying the truth—but regardless of the reason, voters are furious about the outcome.

When Bondi promised exposure and Bongino demanded justice on his podcast, they were speaking the language of insurgent conservatism. Voters see their pivot as capitulation to the deep state. They are now associated with legacy bureaucrats like Bill Barr or James Comey—men previously lambasted as agents of institutional decay.

• Voters accuse Bongino of trading integrity for access.
• Patel is labeled a puppet of entrenched interests.
• Bondi is seen as a gatekeeper, not a reformer.

Trump’s Involvement and Elite Protection

Speculation ranges from accusations of internal sabotage to claims that Trump has cut deals to protect allies. Though most of the MAGA base stops short of accusing Trump directly, the pattern shows anger once directed at external enemies now circles back to the movement’s inner circle.

• Some voters say the reversal is an effort to shield Trump from association with Epstein.
• Others suspect “blackmail” and “international pressure,” invoking Mossad, CIA, or compromised intelligence sources.
• A minority segment voices open disgust with Trump’s personnel decisions, saying this scandal proves he surrounds himself with “swamp actors in MAGA clothing.”

Demands for Reform or Rupture

The betrayal is too large to ignore, but many voters remain loyal to the broader populist project. This creates two sides either demanding a purge of compromised officials or those looking beyond the current MAGA leadership for new, untainted voices.

The calls are stark:

• “Replace Bondi with Alina Habba.”
• “Bongino sold out. Find someone who hasn’t.”
• “Declassify everything. Or shut it all down.”

There is still appetite for radical transparency and internal accountability. Voters want heads to roll and systems to be dismantled. Many are calling for an independent release of the files, a full audit of DOJ communications, and the resignation of any official who participated in the reversal.

Fear and rumors about the potential of overturning of Obergefell v. Hodges in the wake of Roe v. Wade being overturned causes concern among many Americans. The landmark 2015 Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage in the United States has the potential to become a contentious partisan issue as Trump takes his second term with a conservative majority Supreme Court.

Concerns about the future of same-sex marriage are emerging, creating debates about civil rights, states’ rights, and judicial overreach. While many are firmly opposed to reversing Obergefell, there is not an overwhelming majority and there may be significant opportunities to influence voter sentiment.

Sentiment on Overturning Obergefell

MIG Reports data shows partisan division on overturning Obergefell, shifting the conversation around same-sex marriage from a question of legal rights to debates about the role of the judiciary, individual liberties, and federalism.

37% Oppose Overturning Obergefell

A slight majority of online discussion voices strong opposition to any move by SCOTUS to reverse Obergefell. They focus on equal rights and say overturning it would be a severe setback for civil liberties and societal progress.

Concerns about broader attacks on LGBTQ rights and protections are prevalent among critics. Many argue reversing gay marriage would facilitate eroding individual rights, as they say Roe v. Wade has done.

25% Support Overturning Obergefell

A strong minority voice support for the idea of overturning Obergefell. They argue a reversal aligns with states’ rights and preserving religious freedoms. They say marriage should be defined by individual states, reflecting local values and beliefs rather than a federal mandate—which many say is unconstitutional.

There is frustration with perceived judicial overreach in legalizing same-sex marriage, saying the issue should be returned to the states. There are some who argue gay marriage should not be legal at all. However, there is significant debate about federalism versus morality among conservatives.

20% Religious and Anti-State Views

A significant group calls for a complete restructuring of marriage laws. These views are more anti-state. They don’t just want to repeal Obergefell but also challenge the very concept of marriage as a legal institution.

This group frames their arguments within societal norms, often advocating for a return to traditional, religiously rooted family structures. Many here express moral objections to same-sex marriage. When combined with those who focus only on the legal battle, potential support for repealing Obergefell could be as high as 45%.

33% are Ambivalent or Uncertain

The neutral or uncertain stance on the issue is significant in discussions. This group has mixed views about the implications of overturning Obergefell. While they may not be entirely against or in favor, many are concerned about the societal and personal implications it would create—particularly for gay couples already married.

Uncertainty is driven by a desire for further dialogue and a deeper understanding of how a reversal might impact both marriage equality and LGBTQ rights overall. This portion of the electorate maybe be a persuadable group, open to messaging that presents the issue in a balanced but legally grounded context.

Targeting Persuadable Voters

Understanding which voter segments are open to persuasion is crucial for shaping effective messaging.

Moderates and Independents

• These voters are typically not committed to either side but are generally receptive to arguments grounded in judicial neutrality and local control.
• They value pragmatic solutions, and a message emphasizing states’ rights and judicial restraint could resonate with them.
• Many are not ideologically tied to either progressive or conservative values, making them more open to arguments about personal freedom and federalism.

Disenchanted Conservatives

• Many in the conservative base feel alienated by the mainstream political establishment, particularly when it comes to imposed values.
• These voters, while perhaps not outright hostile to same-sex marriage, are more likely to view the issue as judicial overreach by the left.
• Messages advocating for a return to the Constitution’s original intent, focusing on local governance and cultural influence, may appeal to this group.
• Wary of federal mandates, they may support returning decisions to the states to preserve geographical pockets with traditional conservative values.

Rhetorical Drivers for Reversing Obergefell

Supporters of reversing Obergefell use a reactionary rhetorical framework, using historical references, emotional appeals, and highlighting disillusionment with the judiciary.

• Historical Framing: Supporters draw parallels to past judicial decisions, like Roe v. Wade, positioning Obergefell as similarly unconstitutional and ideologically driven.
• Emotional Appeals: Terms like "traitor" and "betrayal" are used to describe justices perceived as betraying traditional values.
• Disillusionment: Skepticism of the Court's role in safeguarding civil liberties drives discussion. Many say the courts, including SCOTUS, can become a political tool.
• Reactionary Sentiment: Critics say prioritizing LGBTQ initiatives in governance, such as public appointments based on DEI, detracts from more important issues.

National Messaging Approach

The issue of same-sex marriage and overturning Obergefell can be framed as part of a social and legal reckoning following pushback against progressive and woke policies.

• Judicial Fairness: Advocate for a judiciary that upholds the rule of law and ensures decisions are based on legal principles, not political agendas. A message that positions overturning Obergefell as a return to constitutional norms will resonate with conservative and independent voters.
• Legal and Social Stability: Connect the consistency of legal decisions to social and legal fabric of society, maintaining both individual freedom and rule of law. Argue that Obergefell was a judicial overreach, regardless of personal views on gay marriage.
• Voter Trust: Focus on the importance of depoliticized SCOTUS rulings. Emphasize that Obergefell was decided by a politically motivated court rather than by legislative consensus. It is essential to communicate that returning marriage decisions to the states is in line with constitutional principles.

In last night’s Michigan primaries, Donald Trump and Joe Biden each triumphed within their respective primary contests, but several key factors spell trouble for Biden’s re-election odds in the crucial swing state.

Trump garnered 138,000 more votes in the Republican contest than Biden's final tally in the Democratic primary. Worse for the 81-year-old President, pro-Palestinian efforts to lodge a protest vote under "Uncommitted" received more than 100,000 votes. While many in the mainstream media have scrambled to either downplay or outright deny a red light flashing moment for Biden, the uncommitted vote came just 54,000 away from Joe Biden’s margin of victory in Michigan in 2020.

Media Intelligence Group’s analysis of online discourse surrounding Trump and Biden in the Great Lakes State finds that Biden is indeed in serious trouble, with Trump poised to make perhaps one of the greatest comebacks in U.S. political history.

Dark Cloud Follows Biden Online

MIG’s analysis of online discourse directed at Biden by Michiganders finds a theme of doubt about Biden’s ability to serve as commander in chief and the Democratic nominee headed into November:

• Before uncommitted’s strong showing, MIG found, “users believe Biden could lose the primary due to dissatisfaction among certain voter groups.” And many users referring to him as "Genocide Joe.”
  
• Others highlight Biden’s age and acuity, a subject under increased scrutiny since the damning Hurr report dropped in early February. “There are discussions about Biden's ability to deliver the State of the Union address, with some questioning his mental fitness.” Some “suggest that Biden's lifespan could be a concern, questioning the wisdom of voting for him.”
  
• MIG found he still has ardent supporters, despite the chaos following Biden. “Some feel Biden and Kamala Harris will fight for them and plan to vote for them” in 2024.

Boiling Anger

Analysis of online discourse from Trump supporters in Michigan finds a theme of anger over both the past and the present that could motivate them to push Trump over the finish line in 2024.

• MIG’s analysis picks up discourse centering on the 2020 election results including, “allegations of election fraud,” and “users suggesting that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump.”

Others are enraged at the current state of America under Biden, demanding immediate action before November.

• Frequently, Republicans lean into removing Biden now, with online comments “demanding the impeachment of Biden.”
  
• Biden’s weakest point and highest policy priority among a plurality of Americans, immigration, generates anger tooMIG found, “frustration with Biden's immigration policy, and accusations of him allowing an influx of undocumented immigrants into the country.”
  
• Others focus on increasingly tragic human stories of Biden’s immigration policy. “There are multiple references to an incident involving the slaughter of Laken Riley, with users accusing Biden of complicity.”
  
• Despite Biden defenders in mainstream media portending the economy is in great shape, Michiganders remain unconvinced of Bidenomics success and, “express dissatisfaction with his economic policies.”

While anger is a serious theme found in discourse by Trump supporters in Michigan, hope drives support for Trump’s re-election as well.

• Pro-Trump Michigan discourse finds many viewing his return as a solution to global chaos, voicing that, "If Trump had won a second term, he would have taken stronger action against China.” And their desire for him, “to be elected in 2024 and end wars.”
  
• Democrats remain critical of the former President, with some suggesting that, “Trump is pro-Russia and anti-Ukraine.”
  

By the Numbers

With just nine months until election day, MIG’s analysis of head-to-head support online between Joe Biden and Donald Trump spells a tight final vote count in November.

• Today, Trump leads Biden 47% to 44% in Michigan, with RFK Jr. taking 9% of support.

Michigan Head-to-Head Support Analysis - February 28

• Over the last 14 days, Biden’s lead in support versus Trump has crumbled, falling from an average of 50% to Trump’s 43% between February 15 and 21,to Trump capturing an average of 46% support to Biden’s 44% between February 22 and 29.

Michigan Head-to-Head Support Analysis - last 14 days

• MIG’s analysisduring this period finds that Trump does not necessarily dominate Biden by garnering more positive indications of support. In fact, in individual candidate analysis, each held 45% approval between Febraury 15 and 21, when Biden’s support began to give way to Trump.
  
• What makes the difference is disparity in the volume of negativity directed at each candidate. Biden earned more negative than positive comments on Frebruary 17 and 18, and his support fell by7% against Trump.
  
• During this time frame, Biden’s ratio of positive comments to negative comments found the incumbent at -149, with Trump lower at -139. This implies a conclusion that Biden’s ultimate weakness in Michigan isn’t voters liking Trump more, but their anger towards Biden is stronger than dislike for Trump.

Looking Ahead

What is unfolding in Michigan spells potential disaster in a must-win state for Biden. Despite being thousands of miles from the border, MIG’s data shows that all states are increasingly focusing on immigration, coming to grips with the reality that every state is a border state in Joe Biden’s America.

It is nearly impossible for the Biden campaign to celebrate winning Michigan with so many cracks being revealed in the President’s 2020 winning strategy. Crucial minority groups essential to winning Democrat coalitions are fraying, evidenced by the substantial "Uncommitted" protest turnout. Democrats almost always beat Republicans in non-general election turnout, yet Trump’s turnout was more than Biden’s by 135,000.

Growing doubts on Biden’s electability, coupled with ever heightening scrutiny of Biden's policies and fitness for office contrasts sharply with the fervent support Trump enjoysAll this is fueled by a blend of anger and hope. As election day looms, the dynamics in Michigan come into focus, where dissatisfaction with the incumbent and a growing appetite for change sets the stage for what could be the most historic political comeback since Nixon’s return to the White House in 1969.

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 Trump administration admitting white South Africans—primarily Afrikaner farmers—into the United States as refugees continues to cause controversy. Central to the debate are racial disagreements and how the media covers the issue. Across online discussion, Americans debate immigration decisions and the role of media as narrator, censor, and cultural gatekeeper.

🚨 HOLY CRAP! President Trump just DIRECTLY confronted the President of South Africa with videos of his government calling for WHITE GENOCIDE

"Turn the lights down and roll the video!"

"These are burial sites — crosses marking murdered White farmers"

The President of SA looks… pic.twitter.com/WHr5zxDVO3

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) May 21, 2025

Media Bias as a Flashpoint

Public commentary centers around what voters see as selective news reporting and ideological filtering. Particularly in right-leaning and independent spaces, a common refrain emerged is, “The media won’t touch this.”

Many on the right say mainstream outlets such as CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, and even segments of the international press treat the story of racial targeting against white South Africans with either ridicule or total blackout.

CNN: The video of a South African political leader calling for kiIIling white farmers doesn’t mean he’s calling for kiIIing white farmers. pic.twitter.com/FAZnFuCDdL

— Jessica 🇺🇸 (@RealJessica05) May 21, 2025

The term “white genocide,” invoked by Trump during a dramatic Oval Office confrontation with South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, was described by media outlets as baseless, inflammatory, and conspiratorial. Critics of the coverage say this dismissive framing is evidence of anti-white bias. This, they say, allows media institutions to engage issues of race selectively, only when those narratives reinforce a progressive worldview.

The South African Minister of Agriculture confirmed in the Oval Office today that white farmers are being killed and that it’s a serious problem. Yet, this is what CNN puts out. pic.twitter.com/6M731FOIGs

— Katie Pavlich (@KatiePavlich) May 21, 2025

Narratives of Suppression and Distortion

Among Trump supporters and skeptical independents, the dominant belief is that the media has engaged in strategic suppression. Many claim even if the term “white genocide” is hyperbolic, the broader trend of land seizures, targeted farm attacks, and racial hostility against minority whites in South Africa is a serious concern—one worthy of honest reporting. Instead, legacy media outlets have treated the entire subject as a taboo, framing any discussion as either racist or fringe.

The South African President brought White golfers with him to try to prove there’s no systemic persecution of Whites in South Africa.

Golfer Retief Goosen then tells Trump that his dads farmer friends have been killed and farms are constantly being burned.pic.twitter.com/IS8JYBbFVG

— johnny maga (@_johnnymaga) May 21, 2025

Comments like “CNN won’t even say the word ‘Afrikaner’” and “They covered Ukraine refugees wall to wall, but not a word about Afrikaners fleeing violence” reflect a belief that editorial silence is intentional and ideological.

At the same time, some center-left and progressive voices mock the narrative altogether, accusing right-wing media of fabricating racial victimhood and importing apartheid nostalgia. This tension sharpens the divide over what counts as legitimate news and what is seen as narrative engineering.

The “Clownification” of the Media

A significant segment of comments mock media reactions in meme-driven language. Posts describe coverage of Trump’s Oval Office ambush as “theater,” while highlighting the irony of reporters refusing to investigate the refugees’ plight while openly criticizing their entrance. Media critics deconstruct reporting line by line, emphasizing that coverage calling the Trump’s refugee initiative as “racist” fail to admit the reality of violence in South Africa.

🚨 HOLY SHLIT: A reporter RUDELY interrupted President Trump's meeting on the genoc*de of white South Africans... Trump FUMES.

This happened directly after Trump played the videos of the white genoc*de over in S. Africa.

NBC: "The Pentagon announced it would be accepting a… pic.twitter.com/acYejaW4or

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) May 21, 2025

Some commenters accuse the media of “clownifying” the discourse—turning complex issues of racial violence, land rights, and refugee ethics into simplistic clickbait. For these Americans, the media’s superficiality is actively decaying serious discourse on important topics.

International Politics and Media Cynicism

Some suggest the media blackout is not primarily about race, but about foreign policy and geopolitical convenience. They speculate that the administration’s move may be linked to pressuring South Africa geopolitically—on issues such as Israel or BRICS alignment—and that media coverage is shaped to avoid highlighting racial dynamics that might complicate diplomatic narratives.

Others suggest there is collusion between media outlets and political elites, arguing stories like this are suppressed because they disrupt the DEI-aligned narrative of white privilege as a global constant.

A Tale of Two Realities

Public reactions to the immigration and media controversy over white South African refugees in America reflects two increasingly incompatible realities:

• For many conservatives and disaffected centrists, the lack of media coverage or the dismissive tone is proof of biased coverage. They believe the press functions as a filter for acceptable outrage—amplifying some injustices while silencing others based on ideology.
• For progressive and left-leaning Americans, the coverage is restrained because the underlying claim—white genocide—is seen as a dog whistle for nationalists to justify anti-immigrant or racist policy.

Between these poles is a growing group of Americans who are simply disillusioned. They no longer expect honesty from the press, and they increasingly view headlines as narrative warfare.

The University of Pennsylvania’s decision to apologize and strip Lia Thomas of previously awarded medals has sparked controversy. What initially appears to be an administrative course correction has quickly escalated into a defining moment in the country’s ongoing debate over gender identity, athletic competition, and institutional accountability.

Public Sentiment

Women’s Sports Discussions

• Fairness-focused, conservative-leaning discussions
• 60% support UPenn’s decision, 40% are critical
• Viewed as a long-overdue stand for integrity in women’s sports

Overall Discussions

• Overall discussions not specific to women’s sports
• 70% criticize the apology and 30% are supportive
• Seen as politically coerced, inconsistent, or ideologically driven

One side prioritizes the principle of fairness, while the other scrutinizes the process and political context behind the decision. The two perspectives demonstrate that this controversy is rooted in the ongoing cultural struggle over what should be based on merit versus identity.

This is disgusting. Lia Thomas worked her balls off to win those races and you're taking them away. I hope you're happy, MAGA. https://t.co/rtrF47A2Q2

— Barry (@BarryOnHere) July 1, 2025

Fairness Versus Identity

The question of whether sports competition should be defined by biological sex or self-identified gender remains heated. The answer, for many, comes down to fairness. A significant portion of the public views Lia Thomas’s participation in women’s collegiate swimming as a distortion of competitive fairness. They say it symbolizes the ideological encroachment of progressivism into physical reality.

This group supports UPenn’s reversal, saying the apology is justified and necessary. They believe it restores credibility to a system that briefly abandoned objective standards for political gain. They view the decision as a moral victory—evidence that even elite institutions can be held to account when they depart from the biological realities that underpin competitive fairness.

Key themes from supportive commentary include:

• “Finally, some sanity” and “fairness for real women”

• Calls to enforce Title IX protections for female athletes

• Praise for institutions that resist cultural capture

Opponents frame the apology as capitulation to external pressure. They don’t necessarily defend Lia Thomas but attack the university’s inconsistency. In their view, UPenn bent the knee to a political agenda after years of championing inclusion—and in doing so, betrayed transgender students and the school's credibility. Critics say the UPenn is emblematic of an elite class that shifts positions for political convenience.

Lia Thomas as a Cultural Scapegoat

Lia Thomas has also become a cultural symbol. NCAA championships once marked a milestone in transgender athletic participation. Now, stripping honors makes Thomas a symbol of the public backlash against ideological activism in women’s sports.

To critics, Thomas embodies the institutional failure to preserve fairness. They argue that trans athletes participating in female categories creates a competitive imbalance, undermining years of work by women who trained with very different physical realities.

Those who support the reversal say:

• Biological sex must remain the standard in competitive classification
• Allowing transgender athletes in women’s sports creates systemic unfairness
• The original recognition of Thomas's wins betrayed female athletes and Title IX

Opponents of revoking Thomas’s medals don’t necessarily defend Thomas’s records, but they push back against the political implications of the decision. They argue Thomas has become a scapegoat in a broader culture war. Some warn that targeting individual transgender athletes to make a policy point encourages further marginalization.

Still, these voices are in the minority. In both the fairness-driven and general commentary samples, there is little public support for maintaining Thomas’s accolades.

Riley Gaines and Women’s Sports Activists

In the conservative defense of women’s sports, Riley Gaines features prominently. Once a collegiate swimmer against Lia Thomas, Gaines has become a visible voice in the battle to reestablish sex-based competitive boundaries.

UPenn has agreed to right its wrongs, restore records to the rightful female athletes, and issue an apology to the women impacted by the man they allowed to compete as a woman.

Are pigs flying?

God bless @realDonaldTrump. pic.twitter.com/PZxcieyp7m

— Riley Gaines (@Riley_Gaines_) July 1, 2025

Gaines represents the populist counterpoint to institutional ambiguity. While universities hesitate and hedge, she speaks plainly and draws a growing base of support. Her defenders consider her a champion for women’s sports integrity. Her critics call her reactionary or opportunistic.

Among conservatives, Gaines is increasingly viewed as a messenger and a movement figure—someone willing to say what others won’t.

Supporters describe her as:

• A "female counterweight" to progressive athletic policies
• A figure "speaking truth in a sea of compliance"
• A reminder that fairness is not a culture war wedge—it’s a principle

The narrative surrounding Gaines has grown stronger in the wake of the UPenn decision. Her emergence signals that the debate over transgender inclusion in sports is now a mainstream fight over how far the country is willing to go in redefining core standards.

Institutional Legitimacy Under Fire

The UPenn decision reignites the crisis of trust in American institutions. Across both supportive and critical camps, one consistent theme is skepticism toward elite decision-makers who appear to change course under pressure.

For supporters of the apology, UPenn waited too long and acted only once it was politically safe. For critics, the university's reversal is a cowardly surrender to the Trump administration. Both interpretations feed the same conclusion that institutions lack moral clarity and are too easily swayed by ideological or political pressure.

Key concerns expressed across samples:

• Universities are privileging cultural signaling over principled standards
• Decisions are reactive, not anchored in objective criteria
• Apologies and reversals appear performative, not credible

This erosion of credibility echoes overall national sentiment toward legacy in academia, media, or the legislative process. The public reaction to UPenn reveals that Americans now view such gestures with suspicion toward timing, motive, and ideology.