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.

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 Democratic Party is facing a crisis of confidence. Discontent in the voter base is deepening, and key demographics—young voters, working-class voters, and minorities—are expressing rising dissatisfaction. Economic mismanagement, a loss of cultural relevance, and a failure to connect with everyday concerns exacerbate fractures.

Meanwhile, Republicans are capitalizing on this moment. The post-2024 landscape has set the stage for a political and cultural realignment, with GOP messaging resonating on issues such as inflation, immigration, and education. The shift is not just among traditional conservatives—Republicans are making inroads with Independents and disillusioned Democrats who feel abandoned by a party focused on ideology over practical governance.

Democratic Sentiment Shows a Party in Crisis

MIG Reports data shows Democratic base sentiment is trending negative with 65-70% of Democratic voters expressing dissatisfaction with leadership. This is driven by frustration over governance failures, economic hardship, and culture war issues.

• Young voters expected progressive reforms but see a party moderating on issues like climate action and student debt. Many are turning toward alternative political movements or disengaging entirely.
• Minority voters feel taken for granted. The party’s rhetoric on racial justice has not translated into substantive policy change, and economic hardships are sharp.
• Working-class voters increasingly feel alienated by Democratic policies on taxes, trade, and energy. Many see the party catering to the professional class and elites.

The party’s internal fractures are becoming more pronounced, with establishment Democrats struggling to placate both moderates and progressives. This infighting is contributing to an image of dysfunction, further eroding voter confidence.

Key Issues of Dissatisfaction

Democratic policy failures fuel top grievances.

• Economic mismanagement: Inflation remains a dominant concern. While some metrics show cooling price increases, voters feel the real impact of rising costs in housing, food, and energy. Many blame Democratic fiscal policies.
• Border security: The Democratic Party’s hand in the border crisis is a liability. Frustration over immigration policies is one of the top voter concerns, particularly for working-class Americans who feel in direct competition with illegal immigrants.
• Cultural cringe: Democrats are perceived advocating for elite interests, detached from the values of mainstream America. The fervent adherence to identity politics draws criticism that the party is increasingly out of touch with cultural trends.

Republicans Seizing the Culture

Meanwhile, Republicans are filling the void left by Democratic failures. The GOP’s post-election positioning is strong, with Donald Trump’s administration enacting rapid executive actions on immigration enforcement, tax relief, and foreign aid reductions.

There is also a growing perception that youth-driven cachet and aspirational pop culture are now on the political right.

For our latest cover story, @BrockColyar reported on the young, gleeful, confident, and casually cruel Trumpers who, after conquering Washington, have their sights set on the rest of America: https://t.co/S8QuhS3VPp pic.twitter.com/zKptkMhn7T

— New York Magazine (@NYMag) January 27, 2025

Republican messaging is resonating across multiple demographics:

• Blue-collar workers disillusioned with Democratic economic policies are embracing the GOP’s emphasis on energy independence, deregulation, and domestic manufacturing.
• Suburban voters frustrated with progressive overreach in education are shifting rightward, particularly on school choice and parental rights.
• Frustrated voters in blue states like California are turning on their progressive leaders for mismanaging things like the Pacific Palisades fires and immigration.
• Hispanic voters are increasingly moving toward the Republican Party, drawn by economic concerns and opposition to left-wing social policies.

Cultural Realignment in Favor of Conservatives

The backlash against progressive activism is fueling Republican momentum. Many voters perceive Democratic leadership as prioritizing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives over practical governance. This dynamic is most visible in education, where conservative parents are mobilizing against progressive curricula.

The GOP is winning the broader culture war by positioning itself as the defender of free speech, traditional values, and national sovereignty. Social issues that once favored Democrats—such as abortion rights and LGBTQ policies—are losing power within their coalition.

Republican Economic Messaging Resonates

Democrats are struggling to counter the Republican economic narrative. The GOP’s messaging emphasizes:

• Tax relief: Trump’s proposed elimination of federal taxes on tips and income tax has gained traction with financially overburdened voters.
• Fiscal responsibility: Republicans are contrasting their policies with Democratic spending, pointing to rising national debt and inefficiency through DOGE.
• Inflation response: While Biden struggled to frame inflation as a global issue, Trump and congressional Republicans have effectively placed blame on Democratic policies, particularly in energy and manufacturing regulations.

The Democratic Party’s Existential Dilemma

The Democratic coalition is fracturing. Major events have generated negativity in the party including:

• The major presidential loss with a disastrous performance by Kamala Harris and party disarray around ousting Joe Biden.
• Losing cultural capital as young people shift to the right, viewing Republicans as the “cool” party, led by Trump.
• The Democrats’ abject failure on border security and protecting American sovereignty.
• Over-the-top and dramatic performances by Democratic members of Congress during confirmation hearings for Trump nominees.

Many also criticize the lack of leadership change after a decisive presidential loss in 2024. Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, Amy Klobuchar, and Cory Booker were all reelected to leadership positions in December of 2024, despite significant negativity in the party.

If Democrats fail to recover from these losses, they risk a further erosion of support heading into 2026 elections.

Public Awareness on the Border

Recent MIG data shows online discussions about border security is significantly increasing, implying rise in awareness and concern among Americans. The general sentiment among Republicans, Democrats, and Independents appears to be that of concern and frustration, albeit for differing reasons.

• In the last 90 days, conversation online about the border has dramatically increased from an average of 2,951 mentions per day in November to 11,088 mentions per day in January.
• In the past week, online discussion about the border has averaged 15,462 mentions per day with February 4 reaching a high of 25,228.

• American sentiment about the border has decreased in the last 90 days. Public sentiment dropped from a consistent 50% in November to 43% today.
• Sentiment on border security has remained below 50% for 84 straight days.

Reactions to the Proposed Border Bill

Discussions about the Lankford border bill appear to be highly polarized and emotionally charged. In general, the discussions also reveal a perceived link between immigration and crime. This suggests that a significant portion of the online discussion on immigration is driven by concerns over safety and rule of law.

Republicans

Sentiment among Republicans seems to be predominantly negative with strong criticism towards the border bill.

• Republicans perceive it as an open borders bill that would allow unchecked immigration and jeopardize national security.
• There are numerous calls for strict immigration control, including the deportation of illegal immigrants and the closure of the border.
• Many accuse the Biden administration of facilitating illegal immigration, which they believe has led to an increase in crime, particularly referencing recent events in New York.
• Republicans also express support for actions against certain Democratic representatives, particularly Ilhan Omar.
• Many advocate for the completion of the southern border wall initiated under Trump's administration.
• Some have even suggested extreme measures like crocodiles in rivers, electrified fences, and drones with bombs.

Democrats

• Democrat voices are less prominent in these border discussions. But there is some criticism of Republicans for spreading what they see as racist and hateful rhetoric.
• Those on the left challenge the narrative of open borders and argue that encounters at the border do not equate to an increase in the U.S. population
• Sentiment suggests they believe Republicans are spreading misinformation about the bill and using the immigration issue to stoke fear and gain political advantage.
• There are accusations of Republicans fear-mongering, particularly toward Trump and Governor Abbott.
• There is also criticism towards the spending on the wall, with some Democrats arguing that the funds could be better used for other domestic issues.
• Democrats continue to be largely critical of the border wall, but are less engaged in discussion about the current crescendo of concern around safety and rule of law.

Independents

• Sentiment among independents is harder to pin down due to the diversity of views within this group.
• There is a noticeable contingent who suggest unorthodox solutions to the border issue, like building a wall on the northern border with Canada.
• Independents are not as vocal as Republicans, but it can be inferred that they are generally concerned about border security and immigration policies.
• They seem to have more nuanced views, but tend to see the need for both border security and humane treatment of immigrants.

Reactions to James Lankford

The online sentiment regarding Senator James Lankford's actions on border security is overwhelmingly negative. Many express dissatisfaction with his border security bill, viewing it as detrimental to the United States.

Approval for Lankford has fluctuated in the last 14 days with a high of 54% and a low of 38%.

Disapproval

• Many argue Lankford’s bill will lead to an influx of 2-3 million illegals per year or 20-30 million in a decade, effectively ending USA borders altogether.
• There’s also dissatisfaction with the bill’s distribution of funding. Many express indignation over possible allocation of more funding to Ukraine and Israel over border security.
• A few voices accuse Lankford of being swayed by bribes or outside interests rather than prioritizing the needs of American citizens.
• Some voters in Oklahoma, Lankford's home state, voice their disappointment, stating that they are closely watching his actions.
• There is a sentiment of betrayal among some Oklahomans who accuse Lankford of siding with Democrats and "selling out" Oklahoma.
• There are numerous calls for him to step down from his position, with some referring to him as a "RINO."
• There's a sentiment of betrayal and a threat of political repercussions with some users threatening to primary him in upcoming elections.
• Across party lines, there seems to be a perceived lack of focus on domestic issues.
• Overall, sentiments reflect a demand for markedly tighter border security measures, as well as a broad disapproval of the bill's provisions.

Approval

• Despite the overall negative sentiment, there are a few voices that view aid to Ukraine as beneficial to the US economy and thus support Lankford's bill.
• Arguments that the Russian invasion of Ukraine has led to unprecedented demand for US arms sales, providing a significant boost to the American economy.
• There are a few voices of support for Lankford, arguing that he is focused on results rather than political posturing.
• However, these voices appear to be in the minority.

Reactions to Alejandro Mayorkas

Online sentiments toward Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas appear to be largely negative, with a strong focus on his alleged failure to handle the issues at the border effectively.

• Many commenters accuse Mayorkas of lying about his efforts to address what they perceive as an "invasion" at the border.
• People believe he has not taken action to curb the surge of illegal border crossings. Some even suggest that he's aiding and abetting the situation.
• This sentiment is mostly held by those who believe that Mayorkas and President Biden's border policies have exacerbated the crisis at the southern border.

Approval for Mayorkas has fluctuated in the last 14 days with a high of 48% and a low of 44%.

Division on a Mayorkas Impeachment

While talk about the border situation is generally negative, there seems to be more division about a possible Mayorkas impeachment.

Approval

• There is a strong call from many for his impeachment, with some arguing that his handling of the US-Mexico border crisis is a breach of public trust.
• Many accuse him of lying to the American people and Congress and failing to enforce border security laws.
• There is a belief that Mayorkas has not protected the homeland effectively and should be held accountable for his actions.
• Many say Mayorkas and Biden are ignoring laws they should be enforcing and do have power to act on this issue.
• Supporters insist that it is the duty of Congress members to vote in favor of his impeachment. They also accuse him of being a "Constitution hater."

Disapproval

• On the other hand, there are many who view the potential impeachment as a partisan ploy by House Republicans.
• Arguments that the impeachment is not about Mayorkas's job performance but an attempt to make the border issue a political talking point against the Biden administration.
• Dissenters argue that the impeachment is a political stunt, a "hit job," and an abuse of the process.
• There are some voices who say the impeachment will not pass the House vote and question the timing of the impeachment.
• Some argue that Mayorkas does not have the authority to set the US immigration agenda and that this responsibility lies with Congress.

The "White Dudes for Harris" online Zoom event has evoked disbelief and harsh criticism from the American public regarding race and abortion. Many who consider themselves “non-woke” deride the event as embodying the racism progressive wokeism claims to abhor. This group also strongly criticizes Vice President Kamala Harris, Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg, and white male progressives who attended the event—including multiple celebrities.

One significant trend in voter reactions questions Harris's qualifications and capabilities. People express deep concerns about her competence and potential impact on the country's future. Those voicing negative sentiments often express fear of worsening economic and border conditions and potential escalations of war should Harris assume the presidency.

White Dudes for Abortion

The topic of abortion remains a contentious issue. There are strong reactions on the left to the idea that Democrats have failed to protect women’s rights despite holding power. Many left leaning voters voice displeasure at Roe v. Wade being overturned and speak frequently about and alleged "Trump abortion ban."

Among progressives there is appreciation for the coalition-building efforts promoting Buttigieg during the "White Dudes for Kamala" initiative. Some express hope at his potential pick as Kamala’s VP. This “white dude” coalition is touted on the left as a strategic advantage that could potentially mobilize significant male voter turnout in the upcoming election.

However, comments made by Pete Buttigieg during the Zoom fundraiser have caused severe backlash. His statement that, “Men are more free when women have access to abortion,” has incited anger across many groups.

Pete Buttigieg says that men are freer when abortion is legal because men can have consequence free sex and simply kill their unborn babies instead of taking responsibility for them.

But J.D. Vance is weird or something.
pic.twitter.com/4Mj24p3USK

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) July 30, 2024

Moderate and right leaning voters express shock and disgust at Pete Buttigieg's remarks. They suggest he’s promoting the idea of men killing their unwanted children as a societal positive.

• National sentiment toward abortion and abortion rights has largely stayed below 50% in the last week with abortion topics briefly reaching 53% on July 28.

Mayor Pete Silencing Women

Following Buttigieg’s comments, social media blazed with anger. People highlight their moral and ideological objections to the notion that abortions contribute to men's freedom.

Americans characterize Buttigieg’s comments as antithetical to life and freedom, questioning the moral and social horror of Buttigieg’s views. Criticisms also touch on his personal life, suggesting a gay man, by his own progressive identity politics standards, should not be speaking on abortion rights. They say issues which deeply impact women should not be a talking point for politicians like Buttigieg.

There is outright frustration and anger, not just toward Buttigieg but also broader Democratic policies. Voters describe Buttigieg’s comments as vile, suggesting they promote misogyny by advocating for male support in promoting abortion.

Critics argue many abortions result from male pressure and emotional blackmail, negating the notion that abortion promotes freedom for anyone, male or female. The use of emotionally charged language such as "disturbing," "misogyny," and "emotional blackmail" underscores the deep-seated opposition to Buttigieg's stance.

Further sentiment indicates many view his comments as bizarre and tone-deaf. Comments like, "WTF does this actually mean? You want abortions so men don't have to take care of the children?" and "How misogynistic is that? Abortion was never intended to be a form of birth control," reflect confusion and indignation.

• In the last day, general support for Buttigieg remains steady, even increasing to 53%. Meanwhile, sentiment toward him on abortion topics sharply dropped to 42%.

Liberals Praise Buttigieg, Ignoring His Comments

A minority of comments align with Buttigieg's view, emphasizing that legal access to abortion is a matter of personal choice and bodily autonomy. They say this contributes to overall societal freedom. However, these supportive voices are drowned out by the vast number of detractors.

Progressives highlight Buttigieg as articulate with good communication skills and a strong progressive stance. They appreciate his ability to frame arguments about freedom and rights in ways that resonate with progressive values. They focus on phrases like, "Pete is so beloved," "would be an amazing Veep," and "an incredible communicator" instead of addressing the abortion comment directly. These voters also emphasize his effectiveness in debates and public appearances, praising his capability to challenge Republican narratives.

The conversation also reveals dynamics within the Democratic Party, including debates on the most suitable candidates for the 2024 election. Buttigieg's potential role as Vice President with Kamala Harris garners mixed reactions. Some Democratic voters say he would be a great choice, while others point to his lackluster performance as Transportation Secretary.

The Abortion Debate in America

While abortion tends to be a more popular issue for Democrats than Republicans, many vocal groups online strongly criticize Buttigieg’s comment. They say it endorses irresponsibility among men, suggesting normalized abortion allows men to avoid the responsibilities of fatherhood.

This perception frames men who make abortion an important issue as expressing thinly veiled misogyny rather than equality. People argue that, despite claiming to be the pro-women Party, Democrats are placing undue pressure on women to have abortions and encouraging men to pressure women as well.

Public sentiment also frequently references the moral dimensions of abortion. While conservative arguments typically do not resonate with pro-choice voters on the sanctity of life, spotlighting the hypocrisy of claiming to protect women while pressuring them into unwanted abortions may be a more convincing strategy.

Supporters of Pete Buttigieg who advocate for abortion rights frequently emphasize "freedom," underscoring women's autonomy to make decisions about their bodies. This group interprets Buttigieg's remarks about abortion providing more freedom for men as an extension of broader social liberties. However, counter arguments point out that “white men” gathering to discuss women’s health is contradictory to women making their own decisions.