Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Who are the angriest politicians on Twitter?

Ronna McDaniel

Republican National Committee Chairman is the angriest political figure on Twitter, according to one study.

Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

Are Republicans angrier than Democrats? Such a broad question cannot be answered at this time, but when it comes to Twitter the angriest Republicans are angrier than the angriest Democrats, according to a new study.

Preply, an online tool for learning languages, studied the Twitter accounts of the 85 political figures with the most followers to determine who is the angriest tweeter. And the “winner” is ... Republican National Committee Chairman Ronna McDaniel.


More than half (52.3 percent) of McDaniel’s September tweets were deemed to be angry by Preply’s machine learning model.

Of the 25 politicians who issue angriest tweets the most often, 19 are Republicans (including the top 15) and five are Democrats. The remaining person is former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, who ran for the Democratic nomination for president in 2020 but recently became an independent. Rounding out the top five are four other Republican allies of former President Donald Trump: Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Green of Georgia, Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas.

The highest ranked Democrat is Rep. Eric Swalwell of California, a vocal opponent of Trump. He placed 16th in September, with 44.3 percent of his tweets tagged as angry.

In addition to measuring who tweeted angry messages the most often, Preply also measured the intensity of that anger. The same five Republicans landed in the top five on that list as well. While McDaniel again had the highest score, the order of the five was shuffled.

All of this anger comes as the threat of violence against politicians is on the rise. Just days ago, Paul Pelosi, the husband of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, was attacked in their San Francisco home by a man searching for the speaker. That man, Paul DePape, has been linked to far-right conspiracy theories, including unfounded claims about the 2020 election.

The same day as that attack, federal security agencies issued a warning about potential threats against political candidates.

“Angry tweets only make the difficult work of engaging the real differences in our country more challenging. Neither side can wish the other away,” said Keith Allred, executive director of the National Institute for Civil Discourse. “The only option is to address our differences constructively and on the merits.”

The Preply study also examined the difference in tone between politicians' official Twitter accounts and their personal handles. Many were noticeably angrier in their personal accounts.

While Rep. Steve Scalise, the second-ranking Republican in the House of Representatives had the biggest difference between his official and personal “anger” scores, he was followed immediately by three of the most outspoken House Democrats: Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Read the full report.


Read More

A large group of people is depicted while invisible systems actively scan and analyze individuals within the crowd

Anthropic’s lawsuit against the Trump administration over a Pentagon “supply-chain risk” label raises major constitutional questions about AI policy, corporate speech, and political retaliation.

Getty Images, Flavio Coelho

Anthropic Sues Trump Over ‘Unlawful’ AI Retaliation

Anthropic’s dispute with the Trump administration is no longer just about AI policy; it has escalated into a constitutional test of whether American companies can uphold their values against political retaliation. After the administration labeled Anthropic a “supply‑chain risk”, a designation historically reserved for foreign adversaries, and ordered federal agencies to cease using its technology, the company did not yield. Instead, Anthropic filed two lawsuits: one in the Northern District of California and another in the D.C. Circuit, each challenging different aspects of the government’s actions and calling them “unprecedented and unlawful.”

The Pentagon has now formally issued the supply‑chain risk designation, triggering immediate cancellations of federal contracts and jeopardizing “hundreds of millions of dollars” in near‑term revenue. Anthropic’s filings describe the losses as “unrecoverable,” with reputational damage compounding the financial harm. Yet even as the government blacklists the company, the Pentagon continues using Claude in classified systems because the model is deeply embedded in wartime workflows. This contradiction underscores the political nature of the designation: a tool deemed too “dangerous” to be used by federal agencies is simultaneously indispensable in active military operations.

Keep ReadingShow less
An illustration of a person standing on a giant robotic hand.

As AI transforms the labor market, the U.S. faces a familiar challenge: preparing workers for new skills. A look at a 1991 Labor Department report reveals striking parallels.

Getty Images, Andriy Onufriyenko

We’ve Been "Preparing" for the Future Since 1991—It Hasn't Worked

“Today, the demands on business and workers are different. Firms must meet world-class standards, and so must workers. Employers seek adaptability and the ability to learn and work in teams.”

Sound familiar?

Keep ReadingShow less
News control room
Not news to many: Our polarized view of news brands is only intensifying
Not news to many: Our polarized view of news brands is only intensifying

Non‑Partisan Doesn’t Mean Unbiased: Why America Keeps Getting This Wrong

For as long as I’ve worked in democracy reform, I’ve watched people use non‑partisan and non‑biased as if they meant the same thing. They don’t. This confusion has distorted how Americans judge the credibility of the democracy reform movement, journalists, and even one another. We have created an impossible expectation that anyone who claims to be non‑partisan must also be free of bias.

Non‑partisanship, at its core, is not taking sides in political debates or endorsing a party, candidate, or ideology. It creates space for fair, balanced dialogue accessible to multiple perspectives. Nonpartisan environments encourage discussion and explanation of various viewpoints.

Keep ReadingShow less